Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Republic of Ireland (Constitutional Talks)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he intends to have with the Government of the Irish Republic concerning the constitution of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with Ministers from the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I had a meeting with Mr. Barry, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland, on 25 October, when I also met Mr. Noonan, the Minister for Justice. I met Mr. Barry again with other Ministers at the Heads of Government meeting on 18 and 19 November. These were useful occasions and I look forward to future meetings within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. Such meetings do not affect the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the immense harm caused to Anglo-Irish relations by the Prime Minister's remarks after her meeting with the Irish Prime Minister? Would it not be wise for the right hon. Lady and the Secretary of State, who is new to the job, to realise the need for sensitivity? Is he aware that if mainstream Irish nationalism is treated with contempt the only gainers will be the Provisional IRA?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already answered that question. The process of regular discussion and consultation between the two Governments, the giving and taking of advice, is very useful and important for all who are concerned with Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the characteristically unhelpful comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? Will he confirm that although the three proposals in the Forum report are not acceptable to the majority of Northern Ireland people, there is an opportunity for a unique relationship between the two sides and ourselves without impinging upon the spirit or the letter of the constitutional guarantee?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Forum report is a stimulating document in which much common ground is revealed on issues such as consent and violence.
Much has been said of the three possible solutions in the Forum report, but it leaves the door open to other possibilities.

Mr. McCusker: When the Secretary of State next meets Dublin Ministers, will he ask them to describe in detail the abject misery and nightmare existence which they allege is endured by hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Ireland for which he is responsible? What does the Secretary of State intend to do to remove the deprivation which, according to allegations made at the weekend, is suffered by hundreds of thousands of Northern Ireland people who are being denied basic political rights?

Mr. Hurd: I hope that we shall have the support of Unionist Members on both sides of the House in proving that the Province's institutions are there to serve all who live in the Province.

Mr. Peter Robinson: At the recent meeting with Mr. Barry, or at the summit, did the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister raise with representatives from the Republic of Ireland the arrogant, abusive and illegal claim of jurisdiction over Northern Ireland contained in articles 2 and 3 of the Republic of Ireland's constitution?

Mr. Hurd: No, Sir.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the Secretary of State admit that the only policy that the British Government have for Northern Ireland is desperately to keep the lid on it and that they have no solution to all the conflict, misery and death? Does he agree that Britain is simply willing to wait until some explosion occurs to force constructive action that will bring us to a long-term settlement?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady cannot have read the communiqué from the summit or what has been said since. Her description of our policy is a travesty. On the one hand, for the reason that I have just given, we are searching for closer and more effective co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Within the Province, a particular part of my job is to do my best to encourage those who are elected to represent the different traditions there to come together and to show that the institutions of the Province exist to serve all its inhabitants.

Mr. Dubs: While making every possible allowance for the Secretary of State's newness to his job, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that his mind-boggling complacency will arouse the anger of many people who want to see a settlement of our difficulties in Northern Ireland? Does he realise— if not, is it not about time that he did so—that his speeches and the conduct of the Prime Minister are a stab in the back for the Prime Minister of the Republic and the hopes of many people for peace in both parts of Ireland?

Mr. Hurd: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually fair in his comments and criticism, should take up that theme. I shall, with great pleasure, send him the transcripts of the press conferences of both my right hon. Friend and myself, and with his usual fair-mindedness he can judge for himself. I am not in the least complacent—no member of the Government is—about the situation in the Province. The levels of violence are unacceptable, the levels of unemployment are deeply tragic and disturbing, and the political institutions are obviously not normal.

Mr. Archer: I welcome the Secretary of State to his first Northern Ireland Question Time since assuming his present high office. Has he grasped the catastrophic change in atmosphere which has taken place since the summit, with parties which were previously prepared to talk and exchange proposals now expressing bitterness and frustration, and with everyone adding his three penn'orth of petrol to the fire? Is the right hon. Gentleman not appalled at the fact that this change has stemmed from the crass insensitivity of the Prime Minister following the summit meeting, and is there any reason to hope for anything better from the February summit?

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the February summit, because there is work to be done along the lines that I indicated—but not altering the constitutional status of the problem—on which we need the co-operation of the Irish Republic. I do not agree with the rest of what he said. I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to the communiqué issued after Chequers, which sets out the lines of work which the two Governments agreed to follow. That is what we are doing.

Devolution

Mr. Maude: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he anticipates laying proposals for devolved government before the House as envisaged under the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1982.

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent round of talks with Northern Ireland party leaders.

Mr. Hurd: I have talked to the leaders of Northern Ireland constitutional parties twice in recent weeks and I have met the Assembly's Devolution Report Committee. All have said that they want to make progress and have shown some understanding of each other's anxieties. I shall continue to encourage them to build on these expressions of intent.
Progress will be made only when the parties reach common ground on a political framework for Northern Ireland which commands widespread acceptance throughout the community. This is, of course, the criterion laid down in the Northern Ireland Act 1982.

Mr. Maude: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to impress upon the Unionist parties that it is in their interests, as well as in the wider national interest, to take all steps to encourage and to show greater generosity to those representatives of constitutional nationalism in the Northern Ireland community?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. When I took office and read the Ulster Unionist document "The Way Forward" I was struck with the following phrase:
It is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs".
People in the House and the country who follow these matters now wish to see what action the Unionist parties propose to take to bring this about.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend ruling out any possibility of amending the Northern Ireland Assembly Act so that devolution can take place? If so, and as he has a breathing space, may I suggest that it might be useful to set up a commission— perhaps a Royal

Commission— drawn from a wide spectrum of the community to consider the possibility of a better structure of local administration for the Province?

Mr. Hurd: I have no plans to bring forward to the House proposals to amend the Act, as I do not think that at this moment the possibilities are exhausted.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister recognise, as I do, the signs of an incipient pantomime season in some of the statements from the Opposition today? Will he acknowledge that, despite Opposition Front Bench comments about parties being willing to talk, one significant party has not been prepared to come into the Assembly to talk? Does he appreciate that it is extremely difficult for the parties in the Assembly to come forward with plans unless those people are prepared to share with us in wrestling with the problems involved in finding a solution to Northern Ireland's constitutional issues?

Mr. Hurd: I understand that difficulty, but I think that the ingenuity of political leaders in the Province should find a way round it if they are to turn into reality the general professions that they have made in recent months.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to impress upon the SDLP the need to talk to Unionist representatives of the Province instead of running to Dublin every other day?

Mr. Hurd: It is very important for all the constitutional parties in the Province at this particular time to find ways in which their leaders and members can discuss the problems of the Province together.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Despite the comments of hon. Members opposite, is my right hon. Friend aware that we commend his restrained approach to these problems? Unlike his predecessors in office, however, will he avoid an absolute commitment to legislative devolution, because many of us, on both sides of the water, believe that Northern Ireland should be fully governed like any other part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hurd: I am certainly aware of that view and I have read the skilfully written pamphlet to which my hon. Friend and others have put their names.

Provisional Sinn Fein

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will proscribe Provisional Sinn Fein.

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that proscription is the right course at present, but the Government keep this under close review and would not hesitate to use the power if the circumstances warranted it. The absence of proscription confers no immunity on any individual members who commit terrorist acts.

Mr. McCusker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will disappoint many people in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, especially in the light of the comments made by the leader of Sinn Fein in the aftermath of the Brighton bombing? If he is not prepared to consider proscription, will he take up the suggestion made in Sir George Baker's recent report that a debate should take place in Northern Ireland about the possibility of banning from fighting elections parties that support violence?

Mr. Hurd: The practical difficulties of enforcing proscription would be very great. The propaganda advantage to the IRA would also be very great. I note the hon. Gentleman's second point, however, and I hope that it will not be too long before the House has the opportunity to debate the report of the late Sir George Baker and the Government's attitude to it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has banned one party—the IRA—but Sinn Fein is part of the IRA and in many areas the officers are synonymous. If, as he now says, a ban would not be effective, what is the point of banning the main organisation when he is not prepared to ban a section of it?

Mr. Hurd: People who commit illegal acts are liable to prosecution, whatever the organisation to which they belong. I believe that it is better to deal with terrorists by pursuing and prosecuting people for criminal offences that they commit rather than for the views that they hold or the organisations to which they belong.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is absolutely right to proscribe organisations that are overtly paramilitary, dress up in paramilitary uniforms, carry weapons, and murder? Is he further aware that it was I who, despite the close connection between the two organisations, deproscribed the Provisional Sinn Fein, with other organisations, in 1974? I fully agree with him that if anyone in Provisional Sinn Fein is doing anything that is against the law the best way to deal with that person is to collect the evidence and put it before the courts. To do anything else would simply play into the hands of Provisional Sinn Fein, which, despite its activities, believes that it has a political view to put forward. Is not the only way to defeat it to defeat its political arguments?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Maginnis: Is the Secretary of State aware that one Peter Sherry, who stood as a Sinn Fein candidate in a local government by-election, recently used his manifesto to forecast which people would be murdered, and three of those murders have already been carried out? In view of that misuse of the democratic procedures, will the right hon. Gentleman view more seriously and urgently the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker)?

Mr. Hurd: I know that the prosecuting authorities, as is right, carefully study any statements by Sinn Fein leaders and representatives to ascertain whether they would justify prosecution. I am sure that they will note the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Archer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the best way to defeat paramilitaries is to remove the alienation and despair on which they feed? Will he make a start by relaxing those elements in the legal system which are destroying the confidence of many decent, law-abiding people, such as supergrass trials with overloaded indictments? When will the House have an opportunity to debate the Baker report?

Mr. Hurd: The matter raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman falls clearly within the ambit of the Baker report. Obviously it is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to say when the debate will take place, but I hope that it will not be delayed for too long.

Civil Defence

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Secretary of Slate for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in Northern Ireland in the completion of local authority emergency planning and the raising and training of civil defence volunteers.

Mr. Hayes: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of civil defence emergency planning in Northern Ireland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Northern Ireland is one of 11 home defence regions in the United Kingdom, and civil defence emergency planning in the Province is being developed along broadly the same lines as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am satisfied that reasonable progress is being made in developing preparedness in Northern Ireland.
The current legislation requiring local authorities in England and Wales to undertake emergency planning does not at present apply in the Province. Discussions have begun between the Northern Ireland Office and district councils on the latter's role in emergency planning, with a view to the introduction of similar legislation to that applying in England and Wales. These discussions will include the question of harnessing local voluntary effort.

Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no effective civil defence in Northern Ireland unless and until emergency planning officers have been appointed at both county and district level?

Mr. Scott: The position in Northern Ireland is slightly different, in that under regional control, as we have no county organisation in Northern Ireland, there are four area organisations, which correspond to the health and social service area board organisations. Both the regional and area levels are under the control of my Department. We have made substantial progress in identifying plans and individuals who will fulfil those roles. Discussions along those lines are in progress with the district councils.

Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to encourage the greatest and closest co-operation between the Northern Ireland radioactivity monitoring organisations and their equivalents in the Republic?

Mr. Scott: The United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation, of which Northern Ireland is a part, exercises regularly. Volunteers and others from Northern Ireland regularly take part in exercises in cooperation with their counterparts in Great Britain.

Mr. Neil Thorne: What purpose-built buildings are available at regional and area level? Will my hon. Friend ensure that those buildings are adequate?

Mr. Scott: We have an intermediate programme for adapting certain buildings to be better able to provide for the purposes of civil defence. There is a provision over the period 1986 to 1988 for purpose-built buildings.

Milk Quotas

Mr. Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made with the application of milk quotas in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Forty per cent. of producers in Northern


Ireland have had their quotas confirmed. The remainder have submitted applications for special case or exceptional hardship treatment. Four local panels have dealt with almost all of the special cases initially referred to them. In addition, some 400 requests have been received for review by local panels following initial rejections by the Department and work is progressing on the consideration of these appeals.
The dairy produce quota tribunal has considered nearly 50 per cent. of the exceptional hardship claims received.

Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which at present stands to pay the super levy within the regulations? Will the Minister assure the House that no money will be collected from Northern Ireland dairy farmers or forwarded to Brussels until all appeals are heard, and until we are sure that all EEC countries will stand firm and carry out their part of the bargain?

Dr. Boyson: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the number of people who are prepared to be bought out as outgoers in Northern Ireland is less than in the rest of Great Britain. On his second point, on 20 November, in the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that either all member states would collect the super levy or none would do so. She said:
We shall not be in a position in which Britain keeps the rules while others do not."—[Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 143.]

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that those who have won their cases before panels and tribunals will receive this extra allocation? Can they be sure that what has now been allocated to them will be received?

Dr. Boyson: That assurance cannot be given at present, because the panels and tribunals have been acting separately. We still do not know the amount of buy-out by the outgoers. The decision will have to be made to link the 3 per cent. which we hope we can distribute to the hardship and special cases with the number of claims. Until the whole matter is finished that assurance cannot be given.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister tell us what impact the cut in milk production has had on cheese production and the manufacture of products other than butter in Northern Ireland factories? Will at least some of the butter presently stored in the United Kingdom be made available cheaply in Northern Ireland to Northern Ireland consumers?

Dr. Boyson: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's last point is of interest to many hon. Members. I cannot give the details of the effect on cheese and butter production, but I shall write to the hon. Member. The number of people employed in agriculture in Northern Ireland increased slightly last year. There are no signs of a decline.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my hon. Friend any details of the impact of milk quotas on employment in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Boyson: I am pleased that my hon. Friend asked that question, because it allows me to reiterate the fact that the number of people employed in agriculture in Northern Ireland increased last year. I am sure that all of us welcome that. There is no evidence that there has been any decline this year.

Flags

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to introduce legislation to bring the Province into line with the rest of the United Kingdom with respect to the flying of flags.

Mr. Scott: We have no present plans to do so.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend understand that his answer will cause grave disappointment to some of his hon. Friends and to the Unionists, who are always pressing Her Majesty's Government to treat the Province in exactly the same way as they treat the United Kingdom? At least in this instance, will he explain why the Government are treating the Province differently?

Mr. Scott: I am not without sympathy for the point that my hon. Friend puts forward. Perhaps I can clear up one misapprehension. It is not illegal to fly the tricolour in Northern Ireland, only to do so in circumstances likely to cause a breach of the peace. However, I understand that other legal powers are available to the police which enable them to act in those matters. My hon. Friend must recognise that this is a sensitive matter.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister confirm that when the flag of the Irish Republic is flown in Northern Ireland it is flown not as a friendly gesture to a neighbouring state but rather as a claim by the Irish Government to sovereignty over Northern Ireland? Will he also confirm that there are a number of councils in Northern Ireland, such as Londonderry, which do not allow the Union flag to be flown on any buildings over which they have control?

Mr. Scott: Of course, I understand that there are some circumstances where the Irish tricolour is used provocatively. There are also times, I imagine, in Northern Ireland when it is used to express the aspirations of one third of the community.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is not a third.

Mr. Scott: The Government are pledged to respect the tradition of that one third of the population.

Mr. Archer: Is the Minister aware that many people in Northern Ireland will appreciate his answer? Does he not understand that the Flags and Emblems (Display) (Northern Ireland) 1954 Act is a gratuitous and pointless provocation to nationalist feeling and that repealing it would be a modest step towards the hope of restoring some progress through constitutional politics?

Mr. Scott: This is a sensitive matter. It is something that the Government will consider, but I cannot at this point commit myself to any definite action.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House on what he bases his allegation that a third of the people want to go into the Irish Republic? Recently, an outstanding Roman Catholic leader calling himself Father Paul said that not 20 per cent. of Roman Catholics would vote for a united Ireland.

Mr. Scott: I am not even sure that raising the tricolour necessarily demonstrates a wish to join the Republic. It indicates an aspiration—one might say a tradition—within Northern Ireland, to which we owe respect.

Gas Industry

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the Northern Ireland gas industry.

Dr. Boyson: The Government announced on 6 September that the proposed Kinsale gas project would not proceed as it would not be economically viable for Northern Ireland. We have always made it clear that we could not continue to subsidise a gas industry that had no real prospects of viability; we have now asked towns gas undertakings in the Province to consider their position.

Mr. Nellist: Should not the Minister explain to the House that that decision directly affects the jobs of 1,200 workers in the gas industry and indirectly those of many hundreds more? It also affects services to over 68,000 households, which depend on gas as their sole source of energy. According to Coopers and Lybrand in 1981, the decision not to go ahead with that project and the implied dismantling of the gas system in Northern Ireland would cost £124 million. Should not the Minister explain the need for a fully nationalised gas industry and a commitment by the Government to the jobs of workers in that industry and to the services that they currently provide?

Dr. Boyson: The decision was made purely on economic grounds, in that what one spends on gas subsidy one cannot spend on other things. It is a question of preferences. At present, the subsidy for 3 per cent. of the energy used in the Province costs £12 million a year. No one appreciates more strongly than I do the concern for jobs in Northern Ireland, but there is a subsidy per man of £12,000. The decision was made purely because the heavy fuel cost with which the gas from the Republic of Ireland is linked rose tremendously in the past year, while the demand for gas by both domestic consumers and industry fell.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister ensure that if the gas industry goes out of operation liquid gas will be considered, in order to compensate those users who wish to use it rather than turning to more expensive forms of heating?

Dr. Boyson: We have not closed any of the 13 gas enterprises in Northern Ireland. We have said only that we cannot continue with an open-ended subsidy, or any subsidy at all. If any of the towns gas operations can continue economically, they may do so with our blessing. If those companies decide that they must go out of business because of the costing, we shall have to consider the Government's responsibility in connection with alternative fuels and equipment, and what the hon. Gentleman has said will be taken into account.

Mr. Michael Brown: Following the collapse of the natural gas project, will my hon. Friend say whether there is any opportunity or likelihood of Northern Ireland overcoming its dependence on very high-cost energy sources?

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for that question. Recently there has been a considerable discovery of lignite reserves in the Province. Northern Ireland's problem is that it has no native energy supply. However, hundreds of thousands of tons of lignite have been found, not only near Lough Neagh, but in four or five other areas of the Province. We

hope in January to fire about 500 tons in the west Belfast power station, to find out whether lignite can be used for electricity generation.

Mr. Archer: Has the Minister read the report of the joint working group of the Northern Ireland gas employers board and the gas trade union group, which suggests an alternative project for saving the jobs? If he has not read it, will he undertake to do so if I send him a copy?

Dr. Boyson: I always welcome any gift from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, especially during the Christmas season. However, I have read the report, but neither we nor our advisers in the Department are convinced that the idea is economic. If it is economic and people want to do that they can—we are merely ending an open-ended subsidy.

Magherafelt High School

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mobile classrooms there are at Magherafelt high school.

Mr. Scott: Twelve, Sir.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that the large shift of population from Belfast to large new housing estates, and the need to build schools without extra funding in those areas has contributed to the large number of mobile classrooms at Magherafelt high school and other schools? Will he embark on a long-term programme to replace those hutments with permanent accommodation so that children can enjoy a proper standard of education and accommodation?

Mr. Scott: I accept that the large-scale use of temporary classrooms is unsatisfactory and should not be prolonged for any longer than is necessary. The provision of permanent accommodation must depend on the priority accorded to the different schemes by education and library boards and the availability of resources from the centre.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister agree that a complex involving an infant school, a primary school, a high school and a college of further education on one small piece of ground in Magherafelt is inadequate and that it is time the board took further steps to get sufficient ground to meet the need?

Mr. Scott: The board has plans for the installation of rather more permanent accommodation. That has been approved since 1979, but so far no plans have been advanced. The matter depends on the priority accorded by the board to it in the forthcoming financial year.

Security

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hurd: Since my predecessor last answered questions on 26 July, two policemen, three soldiers and nine civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. So far this year, the efforts of the security forces have resulted in 508 people


being charged with serious offences, including 40 with murder and 65 with attempted murder. In the same period, 188 weapons, 26,560 rounds of ammunition and 7,521 lb of explosives have been recovered. I pay tribute to the members of the security forces and the innocent civilians who have been tragically killed. I should like to pay tribute also to the dedication and bravery of all the security forces who work tirelessly to protect the people of Northern Ireland from violence.

Mr. Latham: As terrorist violence remains the greatest single issue affecting the United Kingdom, will my right hon. Friend confirm that improving cross-border cooperation with the Republic remains at the core of the Government's policy, whatever the ups and downs of our bilateral relations?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will have seen the passage in the communiqué which resulted from Chequers, in which both Governments committed themselves to maintain and, where possible, improve such co-operation.

Sir John Farr: I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the security forces on the wonderful job that they are doing. Will he re-examine cross-border security and ensure that there is absolute unanimity about cross-border problems in regard to communications between the two sides?

Mr. Hurd: I agree that that is an important feature. Security policy in the Province is not static. We are constantly examining new ways in which the security forces can wear down and defeat the terrorists, but obviously we cannot talk about them.

Mr. Kilfedder: Although the battle against terrorism is vital to Northern Ireland, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is equally important to combat ordinary criminals in the Province? Will he take steps to persuade the Chief Constable to put more police into my constituency, where crime is on the increase?

Mr. Hurd: I shall ensure that the Chief Constable is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Castlereagh (Development)

Mr. Peter Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider a modest relaxation of planning law for development outside the Matthew stop line in the borough of Castlereagh.

Mr. Chris Patten: Such development would not require a change in planning law; however, it would not be in accordance with the approved development strategy for the Belfast urban area.

Mr. Robinson: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the statement issued by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), issued on 10 August 1981, which said that the presumption should always be in favour of the application, particularly if job creation resulted? Will he review that and see what resistance there has been from divisional planning officers to the laudable sentiments in that statement of his predecessor?

Mr. Patten: I have read that statement, as I have read a number of other good statements by my predecessor, I do not believe that there is any resistance on the part of

DPOs, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. As he will be aware, we are about to respond to the Northern Ireland Assembly on planning policy in general.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the small relaxation sought would not meet the need in regard to planning law in Northern Ireland, and, in particular, in Castlereagh? Will he consider going much further and giving planning control to councils such as Castlereagh so that they can exercise that authority on behalf of all who live within the boundaries?

Mr. Patten: I shall not be able to do that next week. However, I shall soon be able to respond about planning and planning law in general in Northern Ireland. I hope that, once again, our views will be regarded by the hon. Gentleman as useful.

Apprenticeships

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans for increasing existing skills through a programme of balanced apprenticeship training in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Boyson: Employers are basically responsible for determining numbers and training of apprentices. The Government, however, already support employers by providing extensive off-the-job training in 11 Government training centres and by funding the skill training scheme operated by the individual industrial training boards.

Mr. Walker: I thank the Minister for his sympathetic response to my question. Is he aware that Short Brothers provides the largest number of balanced apprenticeships in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the acquisition of a contract for the Short's Tucano trainer would result in a further expansion of the number of apprenticeships available to young people in the Province?

Dr. Boyson: I am aware that anybody connected with Northern Ireland or Shorts would agree with the second part of that question. I visited the apprenticeship centre at Shorts this year and I am glad to say that there has been an increase from 65 apprentices last year to 118 this year. The Government are funding 20,000 young people in various training schemes. Indeed, in Government training centres more apprentices are being trained this year than last year.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that the promotional literature being presented by Shorts is factually correct? Will he commend it to his colleagues in the United Kingdom whose constituencies could also benefit from the increased employment that would result from the supply of parts for that basic trainer if the contract goes to Shorts?

Dr. Boyson: I am sure that all hon. Members will pay close attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said and will mark his question in Hansard and circulate it around the United Kingdom.

Young Offenders

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young offenders sentenced to indefinite terms of imprisonment at the Secretary of State's pleasure were released in 1983.

Mr. Scott: Two, Sir.

Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted to hear that two have been released, but is it not now necessary for the Minister to recognise the plight of many others, all of whom, by definition, were committed for offences at a young age, many of whom are now opposed to political violence, and all of whom look forward to a date when they can be released from prison, which will give them some hope as individuals for the future?

Mr. Scott: I am aware of the strong feelings on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland on this matter. My primary concern must be the safety of the public, but it might help the hon. Gentleman to know that five cases that are subject to the Secretary of State's pleasure have been given release dates in 1985.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome that announcement, but will the Minister bear in mind the great hardship that has occurred in those cases because the parents do not know the release date? If those people had been over age they would probably have been released long ago. Both parts of the political and religious divide are concerned about the matter. Will the Minister keep in mind the debate that was held in the Assembly on this issue?

Mr. Scott: I cannot envisage circumstances in which the penalty for murder can be other than an indeterminate sentence. However, I am aware of the pressures and uncertainties that many families of those young people suffer. I hope, in the not-too-distant future, to be able to issue guidance to the parents and to the prisoners, which should help to remove some of the uncertainty.

Coal Imports

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to offset the increase in price of coal imported into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Boyson: None, Sir. Pricing is a matter for the coal trade. I expect prices to fall when normal supplies are resumed.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that The Daily Telegraph, the Tory house magazine, of 21 August 1984 states that the people of Northern Ireland are having to pay £10 a tonne extra for domestic coal because they can no longer get cheap supplies from Britain? What is all the nonsense that we have heard for the past two years, with the Government saying that there is cheap coal abroad if only we could get at it? The truth is that the people of Northern Ireland, as well as the people in Great Britain, are having to suffer because of the Government's stupid policy of trying to run down British pits while importing dearer coal from abroad.

Dr. Boyson: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the news that the hon. Gentleman is a regular reader of The Daily Telegraph. One of the problems with coal supplies for Northern Ireland is that long-term contracts are made with the NCB but at present coal is having to be bought on spot markets round the world. Long-term contracts are not being made, so that coal can once again be bought from the NCB. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be meeting President Mitterrand in Paris this evening and shall attend a dinner to be given by the President at the Elysee.

Mr. Powell: This week we have heard a lot about the Prime Minister's speech on Monday night to the Carlton club on the subject of upholding the rule of law and the enemy within. Will she explain to the House and the nation why the Employment Act 1980 and the Shops Act 1950 should be treated entirely differently by her and her Ministers? Why does she allow the courts to treat the Employment Act in one way, with its harsh, obscene sequestration of trade union funds, while condoning blatant abuse of the Shops Act? Is——

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief.

Mr. Powell: Is that not another example of the Tories' double standards?

The Prime Minister: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman would have profited if he had read the lecture in full. He might then have learnt that the law in this country is impartially administered. The courts are the servants of the law and not of the Government.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to give an assurance that if the House should be so foolish as to allow in television cameras the cost will not fall on the taxpayer?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the situation would be the same as that in the other place, and that no extra money would be provided for televising the House, should it decide to allow televising of its proceedings. But in one way the BBC licence fee is raised automatically by the amount that the Government decide on, having received all the representations. People have no option but to pay it if they wish to receive television broadcasts.

Mr. Kinnock: Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that unemployment was higher than the Government had assumed or expected. In the light of that, what possible justification can there be for taking away £340 million of regional job development money or for allowing the closure of one third of Britain's skillcentres?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the statement on regional policy yesterday, or read it. If he had done so he would have learnt the answer to his question, which is that the changes in regional policy are designed to obtain better value for the money that is spent in the regions and to ensure that it is directly related to the number of jobs that are anticipated. It would seem much better to relate it to job creation than to capital allowances, which could give a subsidy towards replacing jobs with machinery. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman would be in favour of that.

Mr. Kinnock: Not only did I hear the utterly unconvincing statement yesterday, which is a betrayal of regional interest, but I looked at reactions to it this morning. Is the Prime Minister aware of criticism of it from the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, trainers, managers and employers? When today's unemployment figures stand at a November record of 3,223,000, why does the right hon. Lady still want to hit simultaneously at investment, employment and training? What makes her insist on destroying the means of people, regions and firms to help themselves to get work?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman heard the statement he will know that the average cost per job is £35,000, which seems a high cost for creating jobs. I should have thought that he was keen on getting better value for money. Indeed, he said as much in a speech on 6 October 1983, when he spoke about Labour party policy. He said:
We plan to get the maximum advantage out of that expenditure and we very much do want value for money because it is our money.
That is our policy, and I am delighted to have his support for it.

Mr. Kinnock: We want better value for money and better jobs for money. The Prime Minister wants neither.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking nonsense. If he wants better value he will get it from the way that we are going. If he wants better and more jobs, will he stop supporting the miners' strike?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In seeking to assist my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, may I ask her to assure us, especially 130 of her colleagues who will not accept the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, that he will not be allowed to phase out the minimum maintenace grant and, for the first time in nearly a quarter of a century, to charge fees for higher education courses?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware from the autumn statement that this year money for education has been increased by £140 million. There are many demands on funds and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has followed some of the demands made previously in the House that more should be given to science. Part of the money that comes from the change in student awards goes to increasing the sum spent on the science budget. In the next two years £10 million will go towards improving laboratories and equipment, and in each of the next two years £14 million will go to enable the research councils to undertake more high quality research projects. My hon. Friend will know that 100,000 families will not make any contribution to students' grants. He will also know that we have the most generous system of student grants——

Mr. Winterton: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: If one lived in Japan it would be lower, in Sweden it would be lower, and in the United States it would be very much less generous.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House not to shout and laugh when the Prime Minister is answering questions, because when that happens I cannot hear her, and neither can anyone else.

Mr. Steel: Given today's disgraceful unemployment figures, how does the Prime Minister expect students to find part-time jobs, as recommended by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to finance their education?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many of them frequently do. In addition to the £700 million that taxpayers give towards student grants, there is also an extra amount of about £100 million that is not taken into account in that figure for housing benefit and supplementary benefit in the recesses.

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday's statement on regional policy will have a devastating effect on many communities? Is she further aware that it is another kick in the teeth for the mining communities, especially in west Yorkshire and the Castleford travel-to-work area— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members listen I shall tell them. Is the Prime Minister aware that if she has no plan to assist those areas we shall have a continuation of the unfortunate incidents that have occurred in my constituency during the past week, and that she will be held responsibile?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, and he knows it. How he dares to say that in a week during which—long before the announcement was made—we have seen violence at a level and of a pitch that we never expected to see in this country is a mystery. If the hon. Gentleman wants the maximum number of jobs from the expenditure of money, he should approve of a system that links the subsidies to the jobs created. It would be ridiculous to link it to anything else.

Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the traffic chaos last night caused by the student demonstration on Westminster bridge? Does she agree that the organisers of such demonstrations not only cause enormous irritation and inconvenience to the general public, but prevent the emergency services, doctors and surgeons from getting through to people whose lives may be at risk? Should not court fines reflect the gravity of those circumstances?

The Prime Minister: I believe that it was a disgraceful demonstration, which stopped traffic, ambulances and fire engines, and undermined any sympathy that some people may have for the students. [Interruption.] I repeat that no students anywhere in the world are treated more generously than British students. In Sweden and Japan they would receive loans, and in many other countries they would receive part loans and part grants. Britain has the most generous student grants in the world, and such demonstrations undermine the faith of those of us who have continued to give student grants.

Mr. Foot: How does the Prime Minister conceivably justify the withdrawal of special area assistance from the areas that have already been hardest hit under her Government? Why does she show such enthusiasm for this measure of combined stupidity and meanness?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the total available for regional aid covers a larger area than it did previously— [Interruption.] Not so much will be given to special development areas, but there were many problems in those parts of the country which were just outside development areas, especially in the west midlands. The regional grants cover a wider area and make grants available to more people. They also link the grants to the number of jobs created. I should also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government, by knocking off the national insurance surcharge, have probably done more for jobs than any other Government.

Mr. Bellingham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some minutes ago.

Mr. Bellingham: Did my right hon. Friend hear about the corporation dust cart that screeched to a halt outside a Scottish bank yesterday morning, whereupon the driver leapt out and placed his application for British Telecom shares at five minutes to 10? Is it not good news for Britain that at the beginning of next week probably over 1 million more people will become first-time share owners? Does

she agree that one of the things that riles Labour Members is that many of those new shareholders will be Labour supporters, who have ignored threats of renationalisation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the denationalisation of British Telecom will bring many people into share ownership and independence for the first time. The Labour party cannot tolerate that, because it wants people to be under its thumb and not to be independent with their own shares and their own homes.

Mr. Benn: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the case of Brenda Greenwood, the first miner's wife to be thrown into prison for voicing her opposition to pit closures? Is she aware that her attempts to crush and criminalise all opposition will fail in Britain, as it did in pre-war Germany?

The Prime Minister: Unlike pre-war Germany, this country has a totally independent system of the rule of law. [Interruption.] I would have hoped, if it is not a forlorn hope, that one day the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition would totally condemn violence and see that the violence on the picket line and the violence perpetrated in the name of this strike is stopped. From the fact that they do not we shall draw our own conclusion—that they wish to continue the strike by that method.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill (1st Day). Motion on the European Community Document 5937/1/84 on social regulations on tachographs and drivers' hours.
TUESDAY 4 DECEMBER— Completion of Second Reading of the Local Government Bill. Motion on European Community Documents 7805/84 and 9613/84 on the lead content of petrol and motor vehicle emissions.
WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER—Debate on a motion to approve the intention of Her Majesty's Government to sign the draft agreement on the future of Hong Kong, Cmnd. No. 9352.
THURSDAY 6 DECEMBER— Debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's "Autumn statement". Completion of remaining stages of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill.
FRIDAY 7 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 10 DECEMBER— Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill. Motion on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order.

[Relevant Documents:

Monday 3 December

(a) 5937/1/84—Draft Social Regulations relating to road transport and recording equipment.

Tuesday 4 December

(b) 7805/84— Draft Directives on lead content of petrol and vehicle emissions.
(c) 9613/84—Amendment to draft Directives on lead content of petrol.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

(a) HC 78-xxxiii (1983–84) para. 2.
(b) HC 78-xxxiv (1983–84) para. 2.
(c) HC 5 -ii (1984–85) para. 1.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be making a statement after next week's EEC summit. However, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the House will be able to debate the results of the summit in Government time the following week?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that yesterday's High Court ruling by Mr. Justice Hodgson throws doubt on the legality of the £120 million order granting supplementary finance to the Common Market. What do the Government intend to do about the order? May we have an assurance that none of the money has been paid to the Common Market in advance of parliamentary approval, as I know that the right hon. Gentleman is particularly vigilant about these affairs?
In next Monday's debate on the local government legislation, will the Secretary of State for the Environment be announcing an independent audit into the cost of abolishing the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council as recent responsible estimates put the cost at £1,000 million for that abolition?
May I ask for additional time for two debates—first, on Monday week, on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order, and secondly, on Wednesday next, on the motion to approve the Government's intention to sign the draft agreement on the future of Hong Kong?
Will the Leader of the House tell us what arrangements he has made for a debate on the subjects raised in early-day motions Nos. 161 and 162, since clearly they have aroused the interest of 148 of his right hon. and hon. Friends as well as of all right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and of a very large number of people outside?

[That, in the opinion of this House, access to first degree courses should not be inhibited by the level of parental contribution in respect of student fees and maintenance.]

[That this House, recognising that the United Kingdom has one of the smallest percentages of 18-year-olds entering higher education of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country, concerned at the United Kingdom's inadequate levels of skilled manpower and believing in education as a ladder of opportunity for all young people of ability, regards the proposed large increases in parental contributions as misconceived and of a severity which will make it difficult if not impossible for many families to pay the full contribution; and calls for policy on student grants and fees to be totally reviewed rather than subject to repeated piecemeal adjustments.]

Mr. Biffen: Of course, I note the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should report to the House after the European Community Summit meeting. The possibility of a debate is a matter that we can consider further through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the payment of funds to the Community, which has been the subject of judicial comment. This is now being studied, and I shall ensure that the House is informed when I am in a position to do so.
I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the content of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in Monday's Second Reading debate. But I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention what the right hon. Gentleman said about the audit.
The right hon. Gentleman requested extra time to debate the motion on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order and in respect of the proposed Hong Kong agreement. I hope that I shall be able to accommodate him on both.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman made a good-natured inquiry about the early-day motions on student grants signed by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sure that it will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that the matter is referred to in "The Autumn Statement" by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and will be appropriate for reference in the course of Thursday's debate.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be an opportunity for a full debate on the miners' strike before the House goes into the Christmas Recess? I am sure that he will agree that there have been many important


developments, including the increasing flow back to work of miners and today's schism in the NUM executive, which the House should debate as soon as possible.

Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's interest that there should be a debate on the miners' strike. It is almost certain that the business of the House will provide a chance for some reference to be made to it. However, at this stage I cannot in any sense guarantee that there will be a full day's debate in Government time.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Has the Leader of the House seen the motions in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends on regional aid? When will these and all the issues of the statement by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry be debated, and when shall we be able to question the Minister on his inability to understand where the unemployment is?

Mr. Biffen: I have noted the action that the hon. Gentleman has taken in respect of these orders, and I realise that the House will want to debate the Government's regional policy and the orders. I shall ensure that such a debate will be held as soon as it can be reasonably arranged.

Mr. Michael Latham: To save the time of the House, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he could avoid a debate on early-day motion No. 162 if the Secretary of State for Education and Science withdrew his proposal and responded to the feelings of many right hon. and hon. Members on this matter?

Mr. Biffen: It is not for me to confirm that there would be such a neat mechanical relationship between one gesture and another. But if my hon. Friend wants to make his point at greater length, he will have his chance on Thursday.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Leader of the House will have seen the furious protest from the Opposition Benches when the statement about regional policy was made yesterday. He will also have seen that demands were made by the Opposition on behalf of people in all parts of the country pressing for a debate on the subject before the Government proceed with this monstrous measure. May we be assured not merely that we shall have one day's debate but that there will be a full debate covering all these matters? Some of us represent parts of the country where there is between 20 and 25 per cent. unemployment. The Government's proposals mean that even the aid that we are getting at present will be cut. That is what the Government are doing, and we want to debate it fully.

Mr. Biffen: I tried to give a reasonably forthcoming answer to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) when he put that point to me. I accept the passion that the right hon. Gentleman invests in this topic. He is right to say that many hon. Members from all parts of the House wish for an early debate. I shall do my best to discharge that requirement.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that unlss there is a helpful statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science some of us might find it rather difficult to support the Government on Thursday?

Mr. Biffen: It it is very kind of my hon. Friend thus to inform me. I only hope that he informs his Whips with the same charm privately as he does me publicly.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the debate on the Hong Kong issue on Wednesday will be an historic occasion and that a great many hon. Members will wish to speak? Did I understand him to say earlier that he would provide additional time for that debate?

Mr. Biffen: I am happy to confirm the premise of the hon. Gentleman's point. It will, indeed, be an historic debate. In response to a request by the Leader of the Opposition, I said that we would extend the time for debate to midnight. Legislation on that matter will be forthcoming, so those unlucky on Wednesday will have their opportunity when we discuss the legislation.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a full debate on the law of the sea convention prior to 10 December, by which time, if we do not sign it, we will lose our pioneer investor status?

Mr. Biffen: I do not necessarily agree with the reflection of my hon. Friend in making his request. There will be an Adjournment debate on that very topic next week, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). Perhaps my hon. Friend would get in touch with him.

Mr. David Winnick: Regarding Question Time, is the Leader of the House aware that 40 minutes for foreign affairs, including the EEC, is somewhat inadequate? Is he making any progress in doing something about that?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that yesterday 145 questions were tabled to the Prime Minister for answer in two weeks' time? As it is becoming a running farce, is it possible for the usual channels to consider the suggestion that anyone who wants to table a question to the Prime Minister must go to the Table Office to do so?

Mr. Biffen: Any attempt to reform Prime Minister's Question Time would be such a fundamental change in the culture of this place that it would best be undertaken by the Procedure Committee.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I regret to say that I have already replied to him with a buck-passing answer suggesting that the matter be referred to the usual channels.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Did my right hon. Friend see reports that stated that one in three applicants for British Telecom shares failed to fill in the form correctly? Will he therefore arrange for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to come to the House at an early stage to answer calls from Conservative Members not to reduce student grants because the level of education obviously needs to be kept up?

Mr. Biffen: I must say, that is very good—nine out of 10. If my hon. Friend starts with the premise of the circumstances of the applications for British Telecom shares, I should prefer him to stay with that and reflect on what a resounding success it was.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Given the depth and scale of unemployment, poverty and destitution experienced by the people of Merseyside, will the Leader


of the House arrange for a debate on Merseyside so that we can specifically identify those aspects of Government policy that are clearly responsible for the present problems, and discuss what, if any, proposals the Government have to ameliorate them?

Mr. Biffen: I do, of course, understand the deep social and economic problems on Merseyside and the way in which the hon. Gentleman has intimately identified himself with them. Given the constraints on Government time, I hope that the point that he wishes to make can be made during the debate on regional policy that has been promised.

Mr. Tony Speller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the Government's policy announced yesterday, the need for a debate on regional policy is more than ever urgent? Is he further aware that only today I heard that 30 new jobs were cancelled in Ilfracombe, which has lost its status because of the Government's ill-considered thinking.

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for that trailer to his intended contribution to the debate on regional policy.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In view of the authoritarian ideas developed in the Prime Minister's speech at the Carlton Club, will the right hon. Gentleman organise a full-scale debate in the new year so that we may consider not only the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to which the Prime Minister referred, but the 1640 revolution which established parliamentary democracy and parliamentary Government in Britain?
May we also consider the Acts of Parliament that have been abolished, such as the Combination Acts about which the Prime Minister was careful not to talk? May we have such a debate so that the nation knows that there is a real feeling in the country for fighting for basic democratic rights which were completely ignored by the Prime Minister in her speech which, incidentally, I read in full?

Mr. Biffen: I have many responsibilities at the Dispatch Box, but I shall neither seek nor undertake the task of correcting the hon. Gentleman's misconceptions about British parliamentary, economic and social history. I can tell him that those who fought for parliamentary liberties in the 17th century did not do it by resorting to rent-a-mob tactics.

Mr. Heffer: No—civil war.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the Government's repeated statements about the need to uphold the courts of the land, why was the Leader of the House not able to give the Leader of the Opposition an absolute assurance that he would remove from the Order Paper the order for supplementary payments to the Common Market until the courts have determined the validity of the order, in the light of Mr. Justice Hodgson's decision yesterday? Will he at least make a statement saying that there is no question of any money being sent until the courts have declared this order to be valid.

Mr. Biffen: It would be absurd if I removed that order from the Order Paper, thus anticipating a judgment which has not yet been made. I gave a forthright reply to the Leader of the Opposition. I stand by that reply and do not intend to add to it.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House consider making proposals to improve public access and facilities for lobbyists in this building? Is he aware that in the past few weeks elderly lobbyists have been forced to wait outside in the cold and rain before being allowed in? Is he further aware that there are no refreshment facilities for people who are not in the company of a Member of Parliament, and that the facilities for disabled people are poor?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 8 November people in wheelchairs were forced to wait in the cold of Westminster hall and were not allowed into the Central Lobby until I made arrangements? Is not the way that members of the public are treated when they try to come to the House disgraceful? May we have some sensible plans for allowing the public into the building?

Mr. Biffen: I think that the whole question of lobbying could properly be considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the House of Commons (Services) Committee. I accept that the matter should be further considered. If the hon. Gentleman submits his evidence, I shall draw it to the Committee's attention.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend my be slightly wearied by the fact that I keep asking him when the Government will make a statement on the disposal of nuclear waste in Cleveland. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have raised the subject 13 months in a row but that the Government keep shying away? The patience of the people of Cleveland is wearing very thin, Sir. Will my right hon. Friend please do his best for us?

Mr. Biffen: I shall do my best. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the plea that my hon. Friend has made yet again today. I know of his deep concern for the part of the world in which he lives. I appreciate why he wishes to draw my attention to it.

Mr. John Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland held a press conference in Edinburgh this afternoon to announce that he was refusing the legitimate demand of Scottish teachers for an independent inquiry into their pay and conditions of service? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey the anger of the House to the Secretary of State and tell him that we believe that he is treating the House with contempt, as he has many times before, by holding press conferences in Scotland instead of coming here to make statements to the House. Will he insist that the Secretary of State makes a statement next week so that we may question him?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the point that the hon. Gentleman has just raised. I would not for a moment seek to get involved in controversies of a Scottish character, but my first reaction is that it cannot be entirely reprehensible that my right hon. Friend should try to do something in Edinburgh which relates to Scottish education.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a healthy majority for "The Autumn Statement", but on the other hand there is no majority in the House for the ill-thought-out proposals on parental contributions. Would it not be sensible to have a


separate debate on this issue so that it could be consigned to the political dustbin at the earliest possible opportunity before it causes an immense amount of damage?

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps providentially, this week's business enables my hon. Friend to make a powerful speech and judge his conscience.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Leader of the House will be aware of today's lobby in relation to the drug Debendox. In view of the sympathy for those women and given that many people believe that their justified claims are being disregarded by the drug companies, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement, and will he also consider the possibility of a short debate?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly undertake to put that request.

Mr. Roger King: In view of the national importance of tomorrow's Stoke-on-Trent summit between the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NUM, will my right hon. Friend urgently find time next week to discuss the outcome?

Mr. Biffen: Plenty of other agencies seeking the spread of truth and illumination will, I believe, do that task for us in an extra-parliamentary fashion.

Mr. Greville Janner: In the light of the growth of sweatshops associated with the outrageously high level of unemployment together with low income and the Government's apparent intention to repeal the wages councils regulations, and in view of the Government's refusal to provide enough funds for the Health and Safety Executive to do its job, when may we have a debate on this matter? As the unemployment level in some parts of Leicester is more than 50 per cent. and that the number of sweatshops is growing, surely this is a matter which demands the attention of the entire House.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this matter with me in the past, and I must again give him the same somewhat narrow reply. This is a topic in respect of which the hon. and learned Gentleman could well try his luck for an Adjournment debate.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that last night's demonstration impeded the progress of hon. Members to the House of Commons, and is not that contrary to the Sessional Orders passed by this House?

Mr. Biffen: That may be so, and it touches on the fairly wide lobbying issue raised by the Hon. Member for Islingto, North (Mr. Corbyn). Feelings run in a variety of directions as to how best we can deal with this matter in the future.

Mr. Peter Shore: The answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was extraordinary. It is unusual when a court has judged that a particular ruling is not in order to find that the order is still on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. The matter is still be be determined, and surely in that interim period it ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. Biffen: No, it stands there pending clarification of the situation.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a general debate on the structure of taxation? If the Chancellor is contemplating the introduction of significant changes in the structure of taxation, many hon. Members would be glad if, while he is still developing his thinking, he had an opportunity to listen to the views of the House.

Mr. Biffen: I think that that is a very bad idea. We are getting to the stage where there is intense public debate before Budget decisions. That public debate is being conducted in such a highly lobbyist fashion as to inhibit the proper independence of judgment that a Chancellor should exercise in the vital months before his Budget.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the inquiry by the five accountants headed by Cooper and others—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lybrand."] No, that is his name. As that inquiry into the affairs of the National Coal Board in the last few months shows that pits have been closed and threatened with closure on the basis of false accounting procedures—for example, Cortonwood was supposed to be losing £6 per tonne when proper accounting procedures show that it is making a profit of £5 per tonne—and as the closure of pits means that there are fewer left to take on all the overheads for subsidence, and so on, is it not high time that the Government arranged for a debate on the mining industry or for a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy? If the Secretary of State is a seeker after truth, he will wish to ensure that we know everything about the NCB accounts and that the report is published in full rather than held back by the NCB in an attempt to hoodwink the taxpayer?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we had a three-hour debate on the coal industry last week and I believe that it was a lively and constructive debate. I will, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hold out the prospect of an early debate on the industry.

Mr. Richard Tracey: In view of the natural apprehension of many people, especially the old, that the BBC may apply for an increase of almost 50 per cent. in the television licence fee, bringing it to about £70, and in view of the rapidly changing structure of British broadcasting, will my right hon. Friend discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the possibility of an early debate on the future financing of British broadcasting?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly make that request to my right hon. and learned Friend. Meanwhile, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbition (Mr. Tracey) will realise that any change in the licence fee is subject to the negative resolution procedure, so it would almost certainly be debated in the House.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Why has the Foreign Secretary not yet made a statement to the House this week about the outcome of the recent meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers, bearing in mind that it was the last meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers before the summit and that the so-called guidelines on budget discipline were considered in the full knowledge that they had not been and would not be approved by the Council of Agriculture Ministers?

Mr. Biffen: I will most willingly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to that point.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Before Monday week's debate on the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to the widespread concern about the risk of personation not only in Northern Ireland, which is dealt with in the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill, but throughout the United Kingdom? As personation has also occurred in various cities in Great Britain, could discussions take place with a view to some kind of submission being put forward for the debate on Monday week so that electors in the rest of the United Kingdom can be protected from electoral abuse?

Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to that point.

Mr. Tony Banks: In view of next week's debates, Mr. Speaker, may I be the first to wish you a Merry Christmas? Will the Leader of the House say whether the "appointed day" order is in fact the abolition of GLC and metropolitan county council elections? If that is what it is, how long will Parliament have to debate that fundamental attack on local democracy?

Mr. Biffen: I have responded to the Leader of the Opposition on this and I have said that additional time will be made available. It is hoped that the debate will last three hours.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the two hon. Gentlemen who have been rising in their places, but we must then move on.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has issued a consultative document on dog licence reform and that only one dog-eared copy is available in the Library to hon. Members. That document is not available in the Vote Office. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that copies of this document are made available in the Vote Office?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those five accountants have challenged every economic and financial assumption made by the National Coal Board? The document they have produced is important and deserves a statement to be made on the Floor of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that next week we shall receive that statement, because that will help us to challenge statements that have been made by the Government during the past months?

Mr. Biffen: Actually, I gave a very forthcoming reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who half nods his head at that remark. I said that I would refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, and I cannot go beyond that.

Supplementary Benefit (Board and Lodging)

4 pm

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on changes I am proposing in the system for making board and lodging payments under the supplementary benefit scheme. I have referred these proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee for it to report its views to me after a process of consultation. Copies of the consultative document are available in the Vote Office.
Supplementary benefit expenditure on board and lodging is escalating. During 1983 it rose from £205 million a year to £380 million a year. My latest information suggests that unless action is taken expenditure will grow by a further 50 per cent. each year during 1984 and 1985. No responsible Government can allow expenditure to increase in this way unchecked. As an immediate measure of cost control, I laid before the House on 22 November regulations which will empower me to impose a temporary freeze on the existing local limits governing board and lodging payments. These regulations will be debated soon. They will be replaced by new arrangements which will come into operation in early 1985, following the consultative process.
There is particular concern about the growing number of young people receiving board and lodging payments, especially those spending long periods on benefit in seaside resorts. The number of such people aged 25 and under went up by 60 per cent. during 1983. The increasing evidence of abuse makes it essential to move quickly to bring ordinary board and lodging expenditure under control.
As far as residential homes and nursing homes are concerned, I welcome the contribution which the many good establishments make. However, the present system of paying for such care under the supplementary benefit scheme does not discriminate adequately between homes for different types of resident or patient. Furthermore, it is difficult to see why the charges for residential care homes for the elderly met for supplementary benefit claimants should vary from £51 a week in one part of the country to £215 a week in another. We must move to a system in which there is less variation throughout the country.
My consultative document proposes several changes. The responsibility for setting the maximum amounts of benefit payable will be transferred to Ministers. For ordinary board and lodging accommodation, the existing locally determined limits will be replaced by two new limits—one for the Greater London area and another for the rest of the country. I am also proposing limiting the eligibility of 16 and 17-year-olds to claim board and lodging payments in their own right. We shall also prevent young people from setting up in long-term board and lodging accommodation, but we shall safeguard the position of the genuine job searcher.
I am proposing a new structure of national limits for payments in the residential care and nursing home sector. These new limits will be designed to reflect the varying cost of providing different types of care. There is no question, however, of elderly, handicapped or disabled


people being moved out of their existing accommodation, and their position will be protected. At the same time, I am proposing that attendance allowance should be taken into account in assessing claims for supplementary benefit from people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes.
Subject to the process of consultation I have mentioned, I propose bringing regulations before the House in February next year with a view to implementing new arrangements in April 1985. I shall be monitoring the new arrangements closely after implementation and will not hesitate to produce further changes if these seem necessary. I shall be considering also alternative approaches in the light of the current review of the supplementary benefit scheme.
The supplementary benefit scheme is there to help people in need. The Government are committed to that. We are equally committed to our policy of care in the community. So we shall continue to meet the needs of the elderly, handicapped or disabled people, but we are equally determined to make sure that the supplementary benefit scheme is not abused or exploited. I am determined that we should no longer make unjustified board and lodging payments. I therefore give this warning: if claimants do not need board and lodging accommodation, or if the charges are too high, the supplementary benefit scheme will no longer pick up the bill.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we accept that new consultative proposals are clearly needed, we note that the problems with which they are designed to deal result entirely from the Government's reckless folly in pursuing an orgy of privatisation of residential and nursing care at the taxpayers' expense, which got completely out of hand? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year ago, in November 1983, the Government deliberately opened the floodgates for commercial exploitation by removing the limit then existing on board and lodgings charges and by substituting charges which, according to paragraph 6 of the DHSS supplementary benefit handbook,
represent the highest reasonable charge for board and lodging suitable for claimants in the particular type of accommodation in the area"?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that as a result of this nod and a wink from his Department private developers cashed in on a building boom which had nothing to do with providing care and attention for those elderly people in greatest need, and everything to do with raking off huge profits, subsidised at the taxpayers' expense through supplementary benefits?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, because of this private development bonanza, total board and lodging charges underwritten by his Department, which were, as he said, £205 million in 1982, have sky-rocketed this year, according to the Government's figures, to about £570 million? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this colossal increase of £365 million has largely been pocketed by private operators, who have used every fiddle in the book to push up charges, and that there has been nothing to stop them, because of the laxity of the criteria and, indeed, the open invitation which the right hon. Gentleman gave them a year ago?
Is it not astonishing, after all this, that there is not one word of apology in the statement by the Secretary of State for this enormous and reckless abuse of taxpayers' money? Is it not clear that the Government have panicked, since

this is the fourth set of proposals in this area within one year? First, the ceilings on charges were substantially relaxed a year ago; secondly, proposals were made in April about who was classifiable as a boarder, which had to be withdrawn as unworkable; thirdly, the board and lodgings ceiling freeze was jammed on in September; and now, fourthly, we have these proposals. Yet still the Government have not got it right.
Why are the Government refusing claimants benefit and at the same time doing nothing to reduce the numbers forced to be hived off into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and hotels because of the squeeze on local authority budgets? Why will the Government not abolish the supplementary benefit restrictions on furniture grants, such as the iniquitous "suitable alternative furnished accommodation" rule which keeps claimants in bed-and-breakfast accommodation even when cheaper accommodation is available to them?
As to the new restrictions placed on young people under 25 moving into board and lodgings, is not the implication that young people up to the age of 25 will be expected to be kept at home, subsidised by their parents? If they cannot or will not live at home, will they be forced into squatting, into sleeping rough or on to the homeless circuit? Why are the Government so obsessionally worried about the relatively minor amount of abuse when the personal expenses of a person in lodgings are only £9·25 a week and when much vaster sums of public money are lost through tax evasion which, under this Government, regularly goes unchecked?

Mr. Fowler: I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman came full circle in his argument. He started by agreeing that it was right to issue a consultative document, but by the end he had come to his usual position of opposing anything and everything that the Government propose on this subject. His response, in total, was superficial in the extreme.
The number of young claimants has increased rapidly. The number in board and lodging aged 25 and under has risen by 60 per cent.—from 23,000 to 37,000—during the last 12 months. This compares with an increase of that age group on supplementary benefit of nothing like that amount. All the evidence shows that this growth is continuing rapidly and disproportionately. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he wants that kind of growth to continue unchecked.
The Government believe that it is sensible to check that growth, not just on financial grounds—goodness knows, those are grave enough—but because I am completely opposed to it. It brings the whole social security system into disrepute when we read reports such as the one published in The Standard this evening, which show the abuse that is taking place. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the maxima which were introduced in 1983. We removed the completely open-ended commitment which the Government previously had. That was plainly sensible. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the last Labour Government the provision of private voluntary residential care increased substantially. The hon. Gentleman has only to go back to the figures to see that that is the case. I had hoped that it would be common ground that we want to see a good private sector and standards maintained in the private sector, but that none of us in the House wants to see claimants abusing the system.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that landlords who cram families into their hotels and receive large payments from the DHSS as a result make extortionate profits? Another problem is that because there is no requirement on the DHSS or local authorities to inspect these hostels or hotels, landlords often crowd husband, wife and three or four children into rooms 12 or 15 feet square and make life a misery for them? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should act in this matter?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I agree. That is why the Government are consulting on this issue. I should have thought that would be common ground between the two sides of the House of Commons in seeking to tackle this kind of abuse. I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. The kind of abuse that has been uncovered makes an unanswerable case for action, and that is what the Government propose. It may be necessary to go even beyond what we are proposing in the consultation document. This takes up my hon. Friend's second point. Under the supplementary benefit review, we shall consider having individual checks, not just on the value of the accommodation and the accommodation provided, but on whether the applicant needs that accommodation.

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: How many people are on the maximum rates on each of the three tiers? The Secretary of State said that there had been an increase in expenditure. Is not some of that increase due to the fact that the system has changed since last November? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not over-react and discriminate unfairly against 16 and 17-year olds. I believe he said that the consultation document proposes to limit their eligibility. I hope that he will not add to the increasing problems which we all experience of youngsters leaving home and finding no place to go. In my opinion and experience, the two-tier rate which he seems to be suggesting—one for London and one for the rest of the country— is a little too restrictive, because even in Scotland there are wide disparities of charges from one region to another.

Mr. Fowler: That is precisely why we are having these consultations. We are putting these proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee, and the public and the political parties will have an opportunity to put forward their proposals. If suggestions are made which will improve the position, I guarantee to consider them seriously. I cannot give the exact numbers that the hon. Gentleman wants. The numbers involved in private voluntary homes and ordinary board and lodging have increased dramatically over the past few years, but they also increased long before the 1983 maximum limits were introduced. There are about 140,000 supplementary benefit claimants in ordinary board and lodging, and about 42,500 residents in private voluntary homes.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Having reported to my right hon. Friend cases in my constituency which helped to promote this benefits review, may I express my appreciation of his decision to limit the abuse of the system by young people, but, at the same time, to protect those young people who are moving around genuinely seeking employment? What does my right hon. Friend intend to do—he did not say in his statement—

about those who are on supplementary benefit and in board and lodgings, who can currently receive up to £140 a week without any deductions from their supplementary benefit?

Mr. Fowler: We are considering that last point, and we shall consider it in the consultation exercise. The Peterborough case, which my hon. Friend put forcefully to me, is one which would be caught under the new regulations which we propose. I hope that I can satisfy him on that.

Mr. Frank Field: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Department of the Environment puts forward large capital sums for the building of hostels in the voluntary sector, and that those hostels are built only upon the assumption that his Department will cover a large part of the revenue implications? Did he do any research into the number of hostel places that will be cut as a result of his announcement? If he did, will he tell the House the outcome?

Mr. Fowler: There are specific proposals for hostels. We shall be setting national limits within a range which I hope will be satisfactory. Some of the national limits— for example, for residential care homes for the physically handicapped—will be increased rather than decreased. We shall have a much more sophisticated system than we have at present.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals will be warmly welcomed in my constituency not least by those who, over the years, have been operating residential homes without seeking to make exaggerated profits. Is he satisfied that the provisions for ensuring that young people genuinely trying to find work will be exempt from these cuts will be easy to operate?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. On his second point, it is our aim to achieve that. If there is any doubt about it, and if there are any proposals which my hon. Friend or the Social Security Advisory Committee wishes to put forward to make it more certain, we shall consider them. We have no intention of interfering with a youngster trying to seek work. I give that assurance.

Mr. Bill Michie: Bearing in mind that the proposals do nothing for the unemployed or the homeless, but sweep the problem under the carpet, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be more sensible to give more financial help to and to co-operate with local authorities on housing stock and to have a more flexible attitude to single payments?

Mr. Fowler: Arguments can be advanced on both those points, but I do not think that that invalidates our action. At the moment the demand and numbers involved have increased drastically, and there is evidence of widespread abuse. In those circumstances, it must be reasonable for the Government to act.

Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement that he is determined to cut out the abuse or exploitation of supplementary benefit will be warmly welcomed, not just in the House, but throughout the country?
As we are talking about abuse and exploitation, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has given any thought to the abuse that occurs when, from taxpayers' money,


supplementary benefit is paid to a recipient either for mortgage interest or for rented accommodation, and those two payments are not made in all cases? Why cannot the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the DHSS make such payments direct to those who should receive them? I remind my right hon. Friend that for council accommodation the rent allowance is sent direct to the local council. Why is there this anomaly in the supplementary benefit system? Clearly, it is an abuse.

Mr. Fowler: The matter is under review. We are considering it, and what my hon. Friend has said will be taken into account.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that if he depresses, by freezing, the level of support for people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, without legislating to control houses in multiple occupation, he will merely drive people into possible death traps, as they will have to lower their standards? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to introduce legislation to control such premises, and will he recognise the insanity of continuing with a tough furniture grants policy, when a different policy would enable people to go into cheaper accommodation and to enjoy greater stability there?

Mr. Fowler: I apologise to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for not replying to his point about furniture grants. The furniture grants policy is being considered, not only by the Social Security Advisory Committee, but in the review of supplementary benefit.
I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's first point, but he will surely agree with me that at the moment there are areas of abuse and of over-charging for board and lodging. He must want to see those problems tackled, just as I do.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State said that there would be a debate on this matter later. I normally allow about half an hour for a statement. I shall allow questions to continue until half past 4, and I hope that in that time I shall be able to call all those hon. Members who wish to ask a question.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about safety standards in board and lodging accommodation? Do the Government have any proposals to bring before the House to try to prevent tragedies such as that which occurred last week in the middle of London, where the deaths were probably the direct result of the inadequate, unsafe and substandard quality of the accommodation?

Mr. Fowler: I recognise the problem, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that this is a matter for the Department of the Environment and the local authorities. I shall certainly talk to my right hon. Friend about it.

Mr. Michael Howard: Is it not truly astonishing that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) should ask my right hon. Friend to desist from dealing with what the hon. Gentleman himself acknowledges to be an abuse of the system, on the ground that there is a different and unrelated abuse? Is my right hon. Friend aware that his measures will be warmly

welcomed, not least in the seaside resorts to which young people travel, not in search of work, but in search of leisure at the expense of the taxpayer?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, I think that that is right. I have been impressed by the number of representations and letters that I have received—from my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) among others—about what is happening in seaside resorts. The Government's action will be welcomed. Many people of all parties are concerned about what is now taking place.

Mr. John Butterfill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how especially welcome his statement will be in my constituency, where there has been a positive flood of young people not seeking work into bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
It is estimated that there are now 2,500 young people from the Liverpool area alone in my constituency. Sadly, many of those young people are actively connected with drugs. The situation is most alarming for the resident population.
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that some of the payments made in my constituency for bed-and-breakfast accommodation are paid at a rate which is above the general level paid by the ordinary public for such accommodation?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, all my hon. Friend's points are correct. His comments underline the reason why it is important to act here. We have seen an astonishing growth of provision in this area, with young people taking up residence for three, four, five or six months in some resorts. That is not what the supplementary benefits system was designed for. I hope that the inquiries will recognise that.

Mr. Peter Pike: The right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) to the effect that the question of single payments is being reviewed is unsatisfactory. There is a need for greater urgency and for a decision at an early date, because of the problems of board and lodging accommodation. At the present time, because of the Government's policy, people are being forced into such accommodation, when there is spare accommodation available in certain areas. I know of constituents who have recently asked for single payments for cookers and have been told that, for a single person, a cooker is not essential. They have been refused payment. Supplementary benefit is not sufficient to enable them to dine out. How are they supposed to heat a meal? An urgent decision is needed.

Mr. Fowler: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the review of supplementary benefit is being undertaken urgently. We are now only months away from proposals being put before the House and considered by the Government. It is sensible to wait for those proposals.
One of the general problems of social security over past years has been the willingness to look at everything in an ad hoc way. We are attempting to consider social security as a whole, and in the round.

Mr. David Harris: My hon. Friend's announcement that there is to be a clampdown on the undoubted scandal of board and lodging payments, especially in seaside towns, will receive a warm welcome in Cornwall, where the invasion this summer was enormous. It is clear that in many cases the young people


are not seeking work. They come to have a long holiday at the taxpayers' expense. Will my right hon. Friend speed up the review of the possibility of making payments direct to landlords, because there are many cases of money being paid to individuals but not handed over to the landlord, which means that those concerned chalk up enormous arrears.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I recognise the great concern that has been expressed in his constituency and in neighbouring constituencies in the west. We will certainly do all that we can in the proposed regulations to tackle the abuse. We will also keep the whole situation under review so that no new abuses spring up.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Secretary of State spoke of safeguarding the interests of the genuine job seeker. How does he propose to identify the genuine job seeker among the rest of the nation's dispossessed young?

Mr. Fowler: It is a question of fact. If someone arrives in an area and is given, say, two to four weeks to look for a job, that might be a reasonable period in which to find that work. If he is content to stay for month after month, one might reasonably suppose that he has given up looking for a job.

Mr. Roger Gale: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks, on behalf of my constituents, for taking action to terminate an abuse which has done serious damage to the holiday trade which we are trying to revitalise? Will he, however, accept that the present frozen limits of benefit are based on high-season summer rates? Will he take action to reduce those rates as soon as possible? Will he also reaffirm that those who leave accommodation in other parts of the country for no good reason will not be entitled to benefit at all?

Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend knows, two new limits are being introduced. We are seeking to consult on the level of those limits and will listen to the arguments that are put forward. I recognise what my hon. Friend has done in this area and the way in which he has campaigned for change. I hope he will feel that the Government's proposition is some response.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he has just said and his statement are a disgraceful attack on the unemployed and are an attempt to blame young people for there not being enough jobs? Does he further agree that the real cause of the problem are voracious private landlords who have made a great deal of money out of the DHSS, the lack of job opportunities in many parts of the country and the way in which the Secretary of State for the Environment has deprived local authorities of sufficient money to build houses or flats for single people in my constituency and others like it? The problem of homelessness among single young people is enormous, is not being dealt with and is not addressed by the statement, which puts the blame where it does not belong. It makes young people scapegoats for the failures of Government policy.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the statement, or, if he did, he must have listened in a strange way. We want to achieve a good private sector,

and most of the private sector, especially in regard to residential homes, is excellent. However, there is abuse which we want to root out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to root out abuses by some of the claimants. It is absurd to describe these proposals as an attack on the unemployed and the young. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that if we do not tackle abuses in the social security system, the system and its reputation will decline.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to say that in the spirit of Christmas I would call the three hon. Members who have been rising in their places, but I see that there are rather more than three. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue for another five minutes, but then we really must stop.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If my right hon. Friend recalls my correspondence with him concerning Dawlish, I am sure he will be aware of how welcome this news will be to people in that area. Does he agree that the fact that the system can be abused on isolated occasions means that public money is being wasted, which is bad enough and that people who are genuinely seeking jobs and are travelling around the country to do so are brought into disrepute? My right hon. Friend's proposals are extremely welcome, because that will now stop.

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his work in bringing abuses in the system to the attention of the public.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What net savings are the Government intending to make? What are the employment implications for the private sector? Is it fair to say that when the former Secretary of State for Employment, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said, "Get on your bike," he did not mean that people should bike to the nearest seaside resort?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his total support for my proposal, which I assume is what he meant by his final statement. We expect there to be savings of about £70 million in the next financial year.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: The residents of Hunstanton in my constituency will welcome today's statement. Is it not time that the DHSS took powers to blacklist certain premises and lodgings?

Mr. Fowler: I know that there has been a case of fraud in my hon. Friend's constituency. We shall examine it in the consultation process. The limits that we have put down will deal with much of the abuse, but if there is fresh abuse we shall act.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on taking such swift steps to end a racket—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— which, even if it is received with laughter on the Opposition Front Bench, is much resented throughout the country, and especially in seaside towns? Will he confirm that no genuine job seeker and no private nursing home owner has anything to fear from the statement?

Mr. Fowler: I know my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. I confirm that genuine job seekers and bona fide owners of nursing homes or residential homes have nothing to fear. We are talking about rooting out abuse in the system, whether by the provider or the user. I find it bewildering that the Opposition should support abuse.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will the consultation process include special consideration of the viability of the voucher scheme, as well as cash, because many people in Leicester unfortunately get behind with their payments, so landlords do not get the money back?

Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly examine that matter.

Skillcentres

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about skillcentres.
In the White Paper entitled "Training for Jobs" the Government set out their proposals for doubling the number of adults receiving training under Manpower Services Commission programmes, including a substantial increase in the number of unemployed training for jobs, and for ensuring that resources available for training are used in the most effective way. The Skillcentre Training Agency yesterday put forward to the MSC its proposals for improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the skillcentre network. Copies of the full proposals and background information are available in the Library.
The proposals will be considered by the MSC at its next meeting on 13 December. In the light of its considerations, the commission will advise me how it will propose to proceed. I shall of course keep the House informed of further developments.

Mr. John Prescott: The previous statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services was about saving money at the expense of people who are looking for jobs and this statement is about saving money by making it more difficult for people to get training. The statement in no way shows whether the Government are at all anxious about the MSC's proposal to throw 1,000 people on the dole—many of them are skilled training staff— and to close 29 skill training centres, or one in three of the total, most of which are in areas of extremely high unemployment.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the commission-has made these proposals simply to meet the cash limits imposed on it by the Government? Does he note, yet again, that areas of the United Kingdom north of the Trent are to carry the extra burden of the cuts, once again exposing the Government's two-nation policies? Has the Secretary of State seen the Confederation of British Industry's statement on last week's survey saying that 57 per cent. of its members were experiencing shortages of skilled labour—reflecting yet again the small amount of money being put into training in Britain as compared to our international competitors?
The House will welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to double adult training but, in reality, because of the shortage of funds, it will be achieved by cheaper lower technology training, more in keeping with the part-time unskilled service-based economy which the Government are imposing on Britain and which will not be accepted by the House.
It is about time that the so-called wets in the Government—in that I include the Secretary of State—stopped whining, like the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on television at lunchtime, about their concern for the unemployed and used their political muscle to reverse the Government's policy of deskilling the nation and driving it to ever-increasing mass unemployment.

Mr. King: The first thing that is clear from the hon. Gentleman's comments is that he has not begun to look at the proposals made by the Skillcentre Training Agency.

Mr. Prescott: I have read them all.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman talked about our saving money. The Government have doubled the provision for training since coming into office. We intend to provide more training opportunities in every region in the coming year. The hon. Gentleman talked about deskilling. When I look at the list of courses being operated, although admittedly not in the skillcentre network, I find that they include computing, computer-aided design and computer-aided draughtsmanship. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the nation must face up to rapidly changing circumstances.

Mr. Prescott: Like closing one third of the skillcentres?

Mr. King: The MSC is charged by the House with ensuring that it is training people for the real needs of the future——

Mr. Prescott: So it is closing skillcentres?

Mr. King: —where the real jobs will come. We have to face up to the need for new skills—it is no use training people for yesterday's jobs.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for some time now it has been difficult for those living In rural areas to get to skillcentres to pick up the new skills that they need for tomorrow? Has he any message of hope within the new framework that those living in rural areas will have an equivalent opportunity to develop the full skills for tomorrow?

Mr. King: The proposals of the Skillcentre Training Agency include a massive provision for mobile instructors. [Interruption.] Labour Members on the Front Bench appear to be blithely ignorant. They seem to believe that training in Britain should be confined to the conurbations and that the rural areas should go hang. I am proud that, while the main provision is in the conurbations, far greater attention than in the past has been given to the provision of mobile instructors, so that training can go to the people and is not wholly dependent on the location of bricks and mortar.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that any proposal at such a time as this to close or run down a skillcentre is an outrage? Such proposals have been made before. In my constituency the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor proposed to shut a skillcentre by cutting off its money and we had to fight to keep it. We did so in association with local industrialists who wanted the skillcentre and who used its services. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to increase Britain's total training facilities, he should add to the skillcentres that already exist. Therefore, will he give an undertaking that he will not close any skillcentre before the House has had a chance to vote upon that policy?

Mr. King: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity recently to look at some of the performance figures of skillcentres which show the reality of the present situation. Unfortunately, it is true that many skillcentres giving training in the traditional skills are training many people who will not get jobs and that there is insufficient training in those skills which will give people the best prospect of a job. We must ensure that every pound that goes into training is spent in the best interests of the people whom we want to train. The right hon. Gentleman must look hard at the justification for

paying for the maintenance of buildings that are under-used when there is a crying need to give our people more modern training. We shall be increasing the number of people in Wales, as well as in every other area, who will have the opportunity in the coming years to receive training more appropriate to their needs.

Mr. David Penhaligon: For the Minister's attitude to be credible, he must be able to tell the House those skills that are currently being taught by skillcentres which he believes to be redundant. Will he do so?

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the papers in the Library, he will see a list of such courses. Of course they are not completely redundant, but one must bear in mind the level of demand. All the traditional skills being taught are in some demand. We have substantially increased the amount of money that is going into training and we are determined to spend every pound in the best interests of those being trained. I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that he would approach the problem in a more objective way. We shall increase the number of people who get the chance of being trained. We shall double the adult training provision. Against that background, the hon. Gentleman should look much more seriously at the needs of his constituents. He should be anxious to see training maximised in that way.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has always been a weakness of skillcentres that many of the people who become instructors teach obsolescent trades but that many of them will now, demonstrably, have learnt a new skill—that of dealing with young people? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the MSC makes staff adjustments it takes that into account and makes it possible for those who have shown a real skill in dealing with young people not to waste that skill but to deploy it elsewhere?

Mr. King: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had a chance to consider the proposals, copies of which are in the Library. The proposals of the Skillcentre Training Agency include a substantial provision for the retraining of instructors. The massive development of the youth training scheme will also provide a massive opportunity for instructors. I hope that the Opposition will look more seriously at the proposal than, I suspect, they are doing at the moment.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that those who have been following the matter for the best part of a year now have been clear all along that if the Government persisted with the determination that the Skillcentre Training Agency would be self-financing within three years, and put on a commercial basis, there would inevitably be wholesale closures, and that that is now happening? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, where male unemployment is more than 30 per cent., the Govan skillcentre is down for closure? That is an utter scandal because it has a perfectly good building which has been there for only 10 years. It is utterly flexible and can meet all the modern demands for modern training. Will at least that proposal be reversed?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if funds are used, perhaps to fund a deficit which is likely to be caused by the cost of maintaining buildings that are under-utilised and providing new buildings, that


money will be denied to people for training in more appropriate tasks. That is the reality. [Interruption.] No matter how much hon. Members shout and scream, they cannot walk away from that. The money that goes into the maintenance of under-used facilities is denied to people who could benefit from more appropriate training. That is the reality of the choice that has to be faced and which is contained within the paper on which the commission will have to reach its decision.

Mr. Timothy Wood: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the skillcentres and adult training are sufficiently responsive to the development and use of new technology?

Mr. King: There have been some encouraging developments in many skillcentres. The House will know that the main customer of the Skillcentre Training Agency is the training division of the MSC which has a duty to determine and provide the most effective training that it can for as many people as possible. Some skillcentres are doing excellent work in many fields. Others find it more difficult to provide the sort of training that is most likely to equip people for jobs. That challenge cannot be walked away from. Shouting and screaming is deplorable on an issue of this seriousness. People should be concerned with the real issues of training the British people.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, when the rumours first circulated that, as a result of Treasury pressure for Civil Service cuts across the board, training centres were to be shut down, I caused a telephone call to be made to the MSC on 23 August during the recess to tell it that, were those rumours true, I was certain that the Select Committee on Employment would want an immediate inquiry? Is he aware that the Government appear schizophrenic about training? They only pay lip service to training because we are told on all sides of the skill shortages and how our rivals train more effectively. Yet the Government's response is to send 450 instructors on to the dole queue. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, prima facie, the Government have a crazy and lunatic policy, which it is his duty to resist in the Cabinet?

Mr. King: Expenditure on employment and training measures is £2,000 million. That is a pretty funny form of lip service. This is not an attempt to reduce expenditure on training. The money that we shall save will go on the training of people. We are investing less in bricks and mortar and more in real training.

Mr. David Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that skillcentres at Long Eaton, Birmingham and Leicester are of little assistance to areas such as mine and that his statement that there will be mobile instructors is very welcome as there is a crying need for them in those areas?

Mr. King: I am absolutely persuaded that we must be flexible if we are to tackle the real problem of improving skills, giving people a better chance of employment and making it possible for the economy to expand by being able to man the new technologies sufficiently. There will have to be changes. I am discouraged by the reaction to this first announcement. I had hoped that hon. Members would be willing to look at the matter seriously, as I shall have to do in due course——

Mr. Prescott: It is a disgusting statement.

Mr. King: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that, because he is implying that he would rather that money was wasted on bricks and mortar than spent on training people.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is totally disgraceful? Since his statement, any confidence that I had in him has completely disappeared. I have a skillcentre in my constituency that is on the list. Like a coward, the Secretary of State is hiding behind the MSC and blaming it for the decision that is to be made a little later. The closure of the skillcentre in my constituency means that people will go on the dole and that those already in the dole queue will be unable to get the training that they are used to. It is a disgusting state of affairs and the right hon. Gentleman should resign.

Mr. King: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has even begun to look at the proposals, or whether he knows, for example, that a substantial increase is proposed in the training for people in his area, as in others— [Interruption.] If he is not interested, and just wants to shout——

Mr. Haynes: Well, do something, then.

Mr. King: ——I hope at least that some of his constituents will realise that. The hon. Gentleman accused me of hiding like a coward behind the MSC, but I have come at the first opportunity to make a statement in response to requests, although the matter is not yet before me. The MSC has not even reached a decision yet. The proposals were put forward, and I was anxious that, if the House so wished, it should have information about them. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can accuse me of hiding behind the MSC.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend agree that his statement is not his last word on the subject? The Middlesbrough skillcentre in my area is due to be closed, but obviously the officials who give advice have no concept whatever of what it is like in the north-east of England or of what the transportation problems will be for my constituents in Langbaurgh who will have to go to Billingham for the next nearest centre. Although I welcome the idea of the mobile training provision, it should be in addition to skillcentres and not at their expense.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will obviously wish to make his views known at the appropriate time, and will be communicating his thoughts. I think that he understands the procedure involved rather better than one or two other hon. Members. The proposals were sent yesterday to the Commissioners and came from the Skillcentre Training Agency. They go before the commission on 13 December and it will advise me on how it proposes to proceed thereafter.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the importance of the matter, but there is an important debate to follow. I shall call those hon. Members who have been standing in their places, but I am afraid that I cannot call any more than that.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State asked us to take the matter seriously and said that the issues had not yet been brought before him. He has mentioned the MSC and the Skillcentre Training


Agency but what part is the House to play? Are we to have a chance to influence the Minister and/or the MSC, or did he say that the MSC would make the decision? Are we wasting our time?

Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House happens to have arrived in the Chamber at the right moment and he will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments on what further discussions there should be. However, I shall keep the House informed and it is for it to decide how it wishes to proceed, depending first on the outcome of the MSC's deliberations.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the mobile instructors relate to existing skillcentres such as the excellent Perivale skillcentre in my constituency? If so, will not that be a considerable gain to the skillcentres as well as to the surrounding areas?

Mr. King: Those who have studied the present situation recognise that there is considerable scope for improving flexibility. The sort of development that my hon. Friend is talking about is one example of that. There have also been developments in the increased use of employers' premises, and that may be more relevant to the needs of Langbaurgh. However, I am sure that flexibility is important and that we should ensure that instructors in the new technologies and skills are available, as that is very important to the development and efficiency of the agency.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Why does not the Secretary of State come clean? Is it not true that industry's long-term interests and needs are being sacrificed in the short-term interest of the Treasury? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for years a reappearance of growth in the economy has met with a shortage of the very skills in traditional industries— not in the new technologies— that skillcentres are designed to overcome? Will he reconsider his statement and ensure that, instead of cutting skillcentres, he expands them in future?

Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have heard my comments about the need to expand the number of people receiving appropriate training. One area of expansion is access to the new technologies. We are seeking to develop that. Part of that development is the successful development of information technology centres which are available for the youth training scheme. We are expanding the use of ITeCs to make them available to adults as well, and to ensure that they have access to the area of new information technology. Of course there will continue to be training in the traditional technologies, but it is a question of striking a balance and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that there is scope, and that the exact method is a matter for consideration by the MSC. But it is undoubtedly important to keep training provision flexible and appropriate to the country's real needs.

Mr. Forth: Although I understand, and indeed support, the thrust of this policy in seeking increased effectiveness and value for money in the training effort, I regret that the skillcentre in Redditch in my constituency is one of those to be closed—[Interruption.] I shall be seeking further information about the criteria upon which it was selected. Some of my constituents may now have

to travel to the nearest skillcentre, which I believe will be in Birmingham, Handsworth. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that they will not find themselves out of pocket? At present I believe that they may have to pay the first £4 of additional travelling expenses. Is he prepared to look at the matter and to ensure that where possible people do not have to pay more for their training?

Mr. King: As I think is clear, I am prepared to look at any aspects of the matter; it has not yet been brought before me as it awaits further consideration by the MSC. However, I believe that that is one of the points that it has very much in mind.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: It is proposed to close the Llanelli skillcentre, which serves the counties of West Glamorgan and Dyfed. But it has one of the highest occupancy rates of any skillcentre in Wales and one of the best records of placing trainees in jobs and it has, over the past 18 months, developed new courses to keep up to date with the new technologies so that industry can be better served. Why is that skillcentre proposed for closure?

Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have heard my remarks. The proposals have been put by the Skillcentre Training Agency, and it has judged the network's best operation and the best use of the funds available. I understand that the proposals include the Llanelli skillcentre, and obviously the MSC will consider that in its examination of the proposals.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House in the clearest possible terms that these proposals will not in any way affect the total spending on adult training, and that any savings which may be made will go straight back into training more young people?

Mr. King: I am happy to give that clear assurance. The statement is about the most efficient use of resources. This is not a proposal to save funds on training. We seek to ensure that funds for training are spent on training people and not on maintaining under-utilised premises or on training in areas where there is no clear prospect of jobs when there is a desperate need to train people in areas where there is a real prospect of jobs.

Mr. Robin Corbett: If, as the Secretary of State says, some skillcentres have run courses in obsolete skills or skills for which there is no real prospect of jobs, why has he tolerated it? Why does he not change that, instead of closing skillcentres? He proposes to shut the centre at Castle Bromwich in my constituency, where unemployment has trebled. Is not the sad fact behind the statement an admission that there is no point in keeping many of these skillcentres open because, as he knows better than anyone else, there will never be jobs for the people who pass through them to go to?

Mr. King: As I tried to make clear to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), the skills are not necessarily obsolete, but they are skills for which there is not sufficient demand. I understood his second point to be a criticism— that, if changes are needed and the Skillcentre Training Agency should put them forward, it should have put them forward earlier. That point needs consideration.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when we unravel the double-speak in which all Government pronouncements are now couched, training for today's jobs means training


for no jobs and means less training? Is not that the underlying explanation of the statement? Will he confirm that his suggestion that there has been a doubling of training under the Government is an inaccurate assessment? We have seen a collapse of the apprenticeship system, a cut back in TOPS training and a lot of expenditure on low-level YTS entry-to-work type training, which does not produce real skills. Will he explain, if there has been a doubling of skill training under the Government, why, in the depths of the recession in the west midlands where people are desperately short of jobs and 30 per cent. of those in the inner core of Birmingham are unemployed, there are skill shortages in the city? Will he further explain why he proposes to close the Handsworth youth training centre, when in my constituency 80 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds are unemployed?

Mr. King: I completely agree with the hon. Lady's first point, that there are fewer jobs than we wish to see. The hon. Lady refered to skill shortages. It is absolutely vital that we ensure that every pound spent on training for jobs will give someone the best possible chance of employment. The hon. Lady is not the youth training scheme's greatest admirer, but I hope that she will concede that it has been much more successful in giving people a chance of full-time employment than she cares to admit.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that one of the skillcentres to be closed serves your constituency and mine. When I wrote to Lord David Young about the closure of the Waddon skillcentre, he said that there would be a new building and increased adult provision at Lambeth young persons' training centre, which would provide a better geographical spread of adult training, with some redistribution towards the inner city. That is now to be negatived and Lambeth young persons' skillcentre is to be closed. The only thing that has changed since Lord David Young wrote to me is that there has been an increase in unemployment so that two out of three black and one out of two white school leavers in Lambeth are unemployed. Will Lord David Young and the Secretary of State support what Lord Young said two years ago, or will they support cuts by the training agency?

Mr. King: I am not aware of the letter from the then chairman of the Manpower Services Commission. I hope that he will support my statement, because he is making an identical statement in the House of Lords at present.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State be totally honest with the House and assure us that yesterday's statement from the MSC and his statement today do not present a fait accompli, which will come about without a long and good debate in the House

on the future of skillcentres and training? The reality of the announcement is the end of quality training for unemployed people.
It is no good the Secretary of State telling the House that the Government are doubling the amount of training. We know that this means the end of proper courses in skillcentres and a move towards the substitution of cheap short-term courses in skillcentres where they still exist, and to an unproven, extremely short scheme on the community programme, which will have a training element in future. Will the Secretary of State come clean and tell the House how much quality training there will be for both unemployed and employed people?
Many people will see the news of this great list. What is the statement about? Does it mean that, where there is high unemployment, there is no room for skill training? With a few exceptions, such as the golden triangle in the South, that is the truth. The statement means the end of skill training. Will the Secretary of State promise us that we shall have a full debate on the matter in the near future? The Opposition will not take this lying down, but will fight it every inch of the way. This presents a real cut and genuine deprivation of opportunities for our people. It means no skills, no tech and no jobs in the future. [Interruption.]

Mr. King: My hon. Friends took the words out of my mouth when they said that that was a little over the top. It was well over the top. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has done his bit of shouting; perhaps he will have the courtesy to allow me to reply. I have already advised the House how the matter may be considered by the House hereafter. It is not a fait accompli. Owing to the slightly difficult structure of the MSC—there is this matter of documents going to the MSC—I thought it right that the House should he aware at this stage of a proposal which will go to the MSC. It has not even been considered by the commission yet.
For the hon. Member to say that this is the end of quality training is so fatuous that it almost beggars belief. The hon. Gentleman supported a Government who spent considerably less than we are spending on training. We are now spending more than double what the Labour Government spent when unemployment was rising substantially. There is undoubtedly a major contribution for skillcentres to make to training provision. But to assume that only skillcentres are capable of training to deride completely the contribution being made, especially in some new technologies, such as computers and computer-aided design and draughtsmanship, by a number of the leading private companies, in which we shall be anxious to see provision for training, and to say that it means no tech and the end of proper training is absolute rubbish. I assure the House that that is quite untrue.

Immigration Service (Mrs. Yasmin Mundiya)

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of the results of his investigation into a complaint made by my constituent, Mrs. Yasmin Mundiya.
The report, published today, is extremely critical of senior officers in the immigration service and the Home Office. After they made a mistake in attempting to remove Mrs. Mundiya's husband from the United Kingdom, an attempt was made to cover up the mistake by claiming that her marriage was one of convenience. That is utterly false.
Two immigration officers, each with many years of service, asked for an explanation from the immigration service and the Home Office. Those officers refused to acquiesce or collude in what they saw as a cover-up of a serious mistake by senior officers of the immigration service and senior officials of the Home Office. Both officers have suffered personal and professional victimisation as a result of the stand that they took: one has been dismissed, and the second resigned from the immigration service.
The case demonstrates vividly that senior officers in the immigration service and the Home Office view immigration as a political battlefield where to admit a mistake, even one that has caused deep personal and family distress, is to hand a political victory to a political enemy.
The debate would be important because it would allow the Home Secretary to tell the public and the House what action he will take to ensure that the personal hurt and distress suffered by Mrs. Mundiya and her family is not suffered by others; to enable him to tell the public and Parliament what action he will take to ensure that his Department will never again try to conceal mistakes by deception; and, finally, to tell the public and the House what action he will take to ensure that public servants who are unwilling to acquiesce or collude in deception of the public and of public representatives are not victimised personally or professionally.
Such a debate would be most important because of the great anxiety about the way in which immigration policies are implemented by the immigration service and the Home Office. A debate based on this extremely critical and important report would be a public service and would be welcomed by many hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
a report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of the results of his investigation into a complaint made by Mrs. Mundiya of Bradford.
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter

which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I completely accept your ruling on the application by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The matter that my hon. Friend raised in seeking a debate under Standing Order No.10 is not, as he will agree, simply one between him and a constituent and the Ombudsman. My hon. Friend deserves the greatest praise for the way in which he pursued this matter with the Ombudsman. This is also a matter for the House of Commons, which has rights in relation to the answerability of Ministers for what happens in their Departments. However much the Ombudsman may have criticised with great severity the actions of civil servants, and whatever apology may have been received from the permanent secretary, what happens in Departments is the responsibility of the Ministers.
The appalling acts that my hon. Friend outlined to the House stem from policies laid down by Ministers— policies which many of us regard as racist. After such a serious report from the Ombudsman, Ministers should tell the House what measures they intend to take to prevent acts such as my hon. Friend described from happening again. We ask for your assistance and advice on how to bring Ministers to the Dispatch Box to make the statement that the House has the right to expect.

Mr. Speaker: I do not deny the importance of the matter, but I am bound by the criteria laid down in Standing Order No.10. I have nothing to add to what I said to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). There are other ways in which this matter can be brought before the House.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for MONDAY 17 DECEMBER

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Michael Colvin
Mr. Michael Stern
Mr. Hughes Dykes

BILL PRESENTED

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Younger, supported by Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. Allan Stewart and Mr. John Moore presented a Bill to amend the law of Scotland in respect of certain leases, other contracts and obligations, certain courts and their powers, evidence and procedure, certain criminal penalties, the care of children, and certain procedures relating to crofting and the valuation of sheep stocks; and to make, as respects Scotland, certain other miscellaneous reforms of the law: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

The Royal Navy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The past year has been one of significant progress for the Royal Navy. Major new ship orders have been placed, new classes of ships have been started, large-scale exercises have been undertaken, and some important operations have been successfully carried out. In addition to making a review of the service in opening this debate, I shall refer to certain maritime aspects of defence policy, and to the Trident programme in particular.
I start with the maritime threat, which is the basic yardstick against which we must measure the adequacy of our naval investment. Even outside the NATO area, we have seen with persistent regularity since the second world war the immense value to Britain of being able to deploy the right numbers and right types of ships in a timely and effective way. But, of course, the in-area commitment—the NATO commitment—is the primary justification and rationale of the size and shape of the Royal Navy. Maritime power—the ability to project military strength over and from the sea — is fundamental to NATO's strategy of deterrence, both nuclear and conventional.
Conventional deterrence would not be credible if it depended on our in-theatre forces alone, especially given the self-evident capability of the Warsaw pact to reinforce early on a massive scale, and along lines of land communications stretching from the inner German border deep into the Soviet Union. Of course, airborne reinforcement and the pre-positioning of some heavy equipment in continental Europe avoids total dependence on reinforcement by sea. However, there is no question but that for ourselves, for the Canadians and above all for the Americans, the ability to transit forces and equipment by sea will remain a fundamental requirement for the forseeable future.
On the nuclear side, the sea provides the one environment in which a key arm of NATO's strategic deterrent can enjoy invisibility and therefore invulnerability, again for the foreseeable future.
The near monopoly of sea control that the NATO navies had in the 1950s and the 1960s has come under increasing challenge in the 1970s and 1980s. The Soviet Union now has a surface navy of about 320 ships of small frigate size and above, and the warships under construction include the first Soviet carrier capable of taking catapult-launched fixed-wing aircraft, which is likely to be completed in four years' time. The Soviet amphibious landing capability, although modest in the past, continues to expand. It has one of the largest merchant fleets in the world, and the largest fishing fleet, and frequently uses both on naval tasks. It has the largest oceanographic fleet, which is another important naval asset. It has the largest mining capability, and it has by far and away the largest submarine force, with about 400 submarines in service, approximately half of which are nuclear-powered.
Despite this, Soviet submarine production shows no signs of slowing. No fewer than eight different classes of submarine are at present under construction simultaneously, seven of which are nuclear-powered, with a new Soviet submarine being completed once every 35 to 40 days.
As one would expect, Soviet ships and submarines are improving all the time—electronically, acoustically and in the capability of their weapons systems. Of special significance is the new submarine-launched strategic cruise missile, which is assessed to have a range of up to 3,000 km and which is likely to become operational within the next year. A still faster, long-range submarine-launched cruise missile is also under development. No less significant is its growing maritime air capability with aircraft such as the Badger, Bear and Backfire able to attack NATO surface ships using stand-off missiles with ranges of up to 400 km.
All the Soviet maritime forces to which I have referred can deploy very suddenly and very fast, as they vividly demonstrated in an exercise in March this year. There is no doubt, therefore, about the fundamental importance of the maritime dimension to NATO's deterrent strategy, and equally there is no doubt about the significant and growing challenge coming from Soviet maritime power on the sea, under the sea and from the air.
Meeting that challenge is, of course, a matter for the Alliance and not just for ourselves. Exercising with the navies of other NATO countries is therefore a high priority task for our own. Over the last year, the Royal Navy has participated in three NATO exercises in the Mediterranean and in the biggest single NATO amphibious exercise ever conducted, exercise Teamwork in Norway, in which the ships of nine NATO navies took part. I am sure that NATO's determination to safeguard the territorial integrity of northern Norway was well noted.
Ours is, of course, also very much an operational Navy, operational every day of the week and every week of the year—providing our round-the-clock deterrent, watching the naval activity of other countries, maintaining the Falkland Islands protection zone, being ready to safeguard our interests in the Caribbean and in the Gulf, preventing illegal immigration into Hong Kong and helping to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland. The continuing operational responsibilities of the Royal Navy are diverse in character, far-flung geographically and of very high national importance. They are discharged extremely professionally and extremely effectively.
I should like to mention one particular operation carried out since our last debate. Earlier this month, five Ton class mine counter-measures vessels and their support ship returned home having been away since last March. They were the group that was deployed to the Red Sea to locate, clear and if possible obtain for examination the mines that had been laid there. Of the various navies deployed on the same task, the Royal Navy was the only one that succeeded in locating, disabling and retrieving a modern live mine. That mine is now being examined in the United Kingdom. As we have previously announced, it is of Soviet manufacture.
We have no reason to believe, however, that the Soviets either laid it, or were aware that it was being laid by a third party.
The whole process of actually locating that mine was extremely skilful, and the process of disabling it so that it could be safely brought back to the United Kingdom was self-evidently dangerous to those concerned. I know the whole House will want me to express our admiration and appreciation for the way in which that operation was conducted.
Before I leave operations, I shall refer to merchant shipping. As the House is well aware, the merchant


marine, both through the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and through merchant ships that we would need to take up from trade in a time of crisis, is critical to the operational effectiveness of the Royal Navy.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Defence has rightly expressed its concern about the possible operational implications for the Royal Navy if the decline in the British merchant marine continues. This is a matter to which we shall want to return, but I should like to make two points to the House at this stage.
First, at the present time, with the possible exception of vessels suitable for mine counter-measures, the size of the British flagged merchant marine in the particular categories of ships that we would require in any emergency is such that we can discharge our NATO obligations. However, it is also clear that this might not continue to be the case, at least in certain categories of vessels, if the decline in the British merchant marine continues for several more years.
The Department of Transport, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, is therefore launching an in-depth study into the likely future trends in the size of the British merchant marine. We shall be assessing the defence implications most carefully when that study is completed in the middle of next year.

Viscount Cranborne: I am sure that the study will be extemely useful and will be read with the greatest interest if ever my right hon. Friend feels able to publish it. However, would it not be more constructive even than what he has proposed now if he were to co-operate with our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Treasury? They could see what incentives can be given for the generation of more trade for British merchant ships than is happening at the moment, thereby ensuring the situation that we should all like to see, in which the Navy can draw on the merchant fleet in times of trouble.

Mr. Stanley: What the Navy can call on in times of trouble is a specific defence requirement. We have a precise view of what our requirements are for the Royal Navy, for those merchant ships that can support the navy, and for those that would assist on the mine clearance operations, on the cross-Channel and north Atlantic reinforcement. I assure my hon. Friend that in advance of the completion of the study, we shall be looking carefully at the current position and the trends. As I said before, there is no cause for anxiety in meeting our NATO obligation, and we are looking, on a contingent basis, to what the implications might be, and to alternative options that we could follow should the decline in certain categories continue.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: In that case, why, in exercise Lionheart, was it necessary to charter in so many foreign vessels?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend will know, as a matter of course we seek to secure the availability of vessels that are suitable for our requirement at a particular moment. There is always a basic difference between wartime and peacetime. War is a period of tension, when the relevant legislation has been passed. It is then possible to use all sorts of ferries that would normally be going about their

holiday traffic. When one undertakes an exercise in peacetime, inevitably one does not wish to disrupt the holiday arrangements of the ferry traffic more than one has to. Therefore, one goes to the market, and does not necessarily have to call on our flagged ships because other vessels are available. We have much greater flexibility in a peacetime exercise than we would in war.
I now move on to the size and the shape of the Royal Navy. I am glad to tell the House that expenditure on the conventional Navy is now substantially higher in real terms than it was when the Labour party left office. This year we expect to spend about £500 million more on the conventional Navy in real terms than was spent in 1978–79— and that excludes Falklands war replacement expenditure, which is additional.
By the end of this year, we expect to have spent some £2,300 million more in real terms on the conventional Navy, again excluding Falklands expenditure, than would have been the case if expenditure had been maintained at its 1978–79 value. We are now seeing the fruits of that higher expenditure in the shipbuilding programme.
Some 41 ships have been ordered since May 1979, and 32 are currently being built with a total value of about £2,800 million. Moreover, many of the ships ordered over the past five years are vastly superior in capability to the vessels they will be replacing, which is why the hull numbers tell only part of the story.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the hull numbers tell only part of the story. The House will be interested to learn how many of the surface units to which the Minister is referring joined the fleet last year, and how many joined the fleet this year.

Mr. Stanley: I cannot give those figures immediately. I suggest that one has to look at the whole pattern of ship ordering. As I said, 41 ships have been ordered since May 1979, and the expenditure on the conventional Navy is vastly higher than it was when the Labour party was in office.
The type 22 and 23 frigates represent a quantum jump over frigates such as the type 12s and the Leanders that they are replacing. The Hunt class mine counter-measures ships are in a wholly different league from the old Ton class ships. The Trafalgar class SSNs have capabilities well in excess of our earlier SSNs, and the new 2400 Upholder conventional submarines are a generation-plus ahead of the Oberons and Porpoise class boats that they will replace. Over the last year, we have in fact set in motion the procurement of no fewer than five completely new classes of RN and RFA vessels. The order for the first of class Upholder conventional submarine was placed in November 1983.
The order for the first of class type 23 frigate, HMS Norfolk, was placed in October this year. Also in October we went out to tender for a design and build contract for the first of a new class of RFAs— the "one stop" auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. Earlier this month we invited a tender for the first of class of the new single-role minehunter. Last, but by no means least, we are currently out to tender for the first of the Trident SSBNs.
I should like to take this opportunity to announce that we have now settled where the refitting of the Trident submarines will be carried out; it will be at Rosyth.
I now want to turn to the different components of the Fleet — starting with the carriers. The third Invincible


class carrier, the Ark Royal, is currently undergoing trials prior to joining the Fleet in the middle of next year. As the House knows, we are committed to having two carriers operational at any one time whilst the third will usually be in refit. HMS Hermes represents an additional carrier, over and above that commitment, and we are currently evaluating whether she should be sold or retained in mothball for the time being.
As for the destroyer and frigate force, the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to maintain eight additional ships in the running Fleet rather than place them in the standby squadron has been warmly welcomed in the House and by NATO. This decision will enable the destroyer and frigate force to remain at around the 50 mark.

Mr. Dick Douglas: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the Trident refit decision? It may be that later in the debate my hon. Friends and I will be able to expand on it. However, to facilitate our understanding, we are talking about a refit programme beginning at some time in the 1990s. When is the order for the Trident likely to be placed, and how many jobs and what capital expenditure can be expected in Rosyth between now and the refit period?

Mr. Stanley: I said just now that we were currently out to tender on the first Trident SSBN. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise date for when the order will be placed, but it is out to tender.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be able to deal specifically with the employment implications for Rosyth.
Our amphibious forces and their specialist shipping represent a unique asset— a unique asset that was fundamental to the success of the Falklands landings. As well as being a unique asset, the Royal Marines also have a remarkable versatility. There are not many formations in the world— if any— that can perform the Arctic warfare role, the infantry role—and in Northern Ireland conditions— the air defence missile role, the artillery role, the special forces role, the close protection role, a variety of support roles, and, not least, the ceremonial bands role— all performed with exemplary discipline, toughness and skill. The Royal Marines and the Royal Marine Reserves do us much credit and perform invaluable services.
In terms of our amphibious shipping, we are restoring the pre-Falklands numbers of logistic landing ships. Contracts were placed with Tyne Shiprepairers in July for the repair of the Sir Tristram, and with Swan Hunter in September for the replacement of the Sir Galahad. Both HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid will remain in service until the mid-1990s.
Studies are currently in progress in the Ministry of Defence on the cost and capability options, which have a considerable range, for replacing our specialist amphibious shipping in time, if agreed, to allow preliminary design work involving industry to commence in the second half of 1985. Our decision on the replacement of our amphibious shipping must await the completion of these studies.
I referred earlier to the massive Soviet mining capability. The approaches to Britain's naval bases and reinforcement ports are bound to be a prime mining target, so we have in hand an extensive programme for modernising our mine warfare ships.
The multi-role Hunt class which can both hunt and sweep mines is proving highly effective. Eight are now with the Fleet; three are building; and tenders were invited for two more earlier this month, with the option of a further two being added, making a potential order for four Hunts due to be placed early next year. As I mentioned earlier, a tender has also just been invited for the first of class of the new single-role mine hunter, the order for which is also planned for next year.
A key role in countering the Soviet mining threat is played by the Royal Naval Reserve. I am glad to tell the House that since our debate last year the first three of the River class minesweepers, being built specifically for operation by the RNR, have now been accepted into the Fleet, and that the remaining nine ships in the class are all building. For the first time, the RNR will have an entire class of new ships that is almost exclusively its own.
In addition, as my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces announced on 7 November in another place, we are aiming to increase the planned strength of the RNR by well over 40 per cent. over the next few years from its present level of around 5,400 to 7,800.
We greatly value the time, commitment and professional skills of the members of the RNR.
The contribution of the Fleet Air Arm has never been more important. In the era of long-range, precision-guided missiles which can be launched from submarines, surface ships and aircraft, it is vital to be able to project the Fleet's eyes, ears and hitting power well beyond the range of the weapons and sensors on our surface ships themselves.
This year we have ordered nine additional Sea Harriers, which will take the numbers available for combat air patrol to well above those available at the time of the Falklands conflict. Looking ahead, we are proceeding with plans to give the Sea Harriers a mid-life update particularly to enable them to counter the increasing missile threat.
Today, the capability of the ship's helicopter is as important as the weapons and sensors that are fitted in the ship itself. Two thirds or the Fleet's anti-submarine warfare Sea Kings have now been converted to the:mark 5 standard, and the balance of the front line Sea Kings will be converted by the middle of next year.
Improvements to the Fleet's Lynx helicopters are in train, which will give increased capability from 1988.
The first Sea King air-borne early warning squadron was commissioned earlier this month, plugging a gap that was exposed during the Falklands conflict.
The memorandum of understanding for the helicopter to replace the Sea King, the EH101, was signed with the Italian Government in January this year.
Finally, in March 1984, Harland and Wolff was awarded a contract to convert a merchant ship, the Contender Bezant, into an aviation training ship to be known as RFA Argus which will principally serve the helicopter training needs of the Fleet Air Arm.
For the Fleet Air Arm, it has, I think, been a year of good progress.
Lastly I come to the underwater navy. The newest of our present conventional submarines was launched in the mid 1960s; the oldest in the late 1950s. We have now started on their replacement. The Upholder class of conventional submarine, the first of which is now being built, will provide a much improved capability against both surface ships and other submarines— both nuclear


and conventional. We believe it will also be exceptionally hard to detect. The first of class is now building, and follow-on orders are planned to begin next year.
The nuclear-powered attack submarine programme continues to go steadily forward. There are now 13 SSNs in the Fleet, with four more building, and a further SSN order is planned for next year. In the battle for sea control, the role of the SSNs will be critical, and even though their cost is greater per boat than any RN surface ship currently building, their capability and their survivability makes them very potent and cost-effective naval assets.

Sir John Farr: The House was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said about the submarine underwater fleet. Is he absolutely sure that it will be the equal of what are reported to be built and produced in Soviet Russia as underwater vessels of exceptional speed and capacity?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, we do not begin to be equal in numerical terms. The technical quality of our latest conventional submarines, our SSNs and new class SSBNs will be a match for, and in many ways superior to, what is available within the Soviet navy. Having said that, the Soviet navy has a substantial numerical preponderance in that area.
I come finally to our nuclear ballistic missile submarines. I wish to make it clear beyond any doubt that the Government are firmly committed to the Trident programme, and that they are proceeding with it vigorously. Our commitment to Trident does not stem from dogma, history, fixation or any of the other irrelevancies that have been suggested in certain quarters. It stems from a cool, rational, dispassionate assessment of Britain's defence needs and Britain's defence priorities in the world of the 1990s and beyond.
That world looks like being no safer from nuclear blackmail— perhaps less so— than the world of the 1960s and 1970s in which previous British Governments of all complexions concluded that it was right not only to maintain Britain's strategic deterrent but to modernise it at very considerable cost. In safeguarding ourselves against nuclear blackmail in the world of the 1990s and beyond, Britain has available to her a unique defence option.
No other European member of NATO, apart from France, builds ballistic missile-firing submarines. No other European member of NATO has the access to the relevant American hardware and technology that we do.
The question for us, therefore, is do we keep or do we discard that wholly unique defence option? The Government's answer is that it is very definitely in our overall long-term national interest to keep it.
We have every reason to think that in Soviet eyes NATO's deterrence is materially strengthened by not being wholly dependent on the strategic nuclear forces of just a single country. The Americans want Britain to continue her strategic deterrent, and so do the European members of NATO.
For Britain herself, there is no additional expenditure on conventional weapons systems, even of the sort of sums required for Trident, that could purchase more than a fraction of the deterrence represented by Trident. Put

another way, there is no scale of conventional retaliation that offers any real deterrent to nuclear blackmail with the massive nuclear armoury that the Soviet Union now has.
Can it seriously be argued that the threat of retaliation by British or even NATO conventional forces alone, would act as a deterrent to a nuclear strike, or threat of a nuclear strike, against even a single British city?
The argument that Britain should unilaterally give up her unique option of a strategic deterrent because she would be better off strengthening her conventional forces simply does not hold water in defence terms.
If it really does make better sense to exchange all one's own strategic nuclear weapons for conventional ones, I am afraid that the soundness of that argument has clearly entirely escaped the Soviet Union.
The fact is that the attempt of the official Opposition and the Liberal Party to justify their policy of abandoning Britain's deterrent on the grounds of strengthening our conventional forces is simply and frankly a fig leaf to try to conceal their adoption of one-sided disarmament policies.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Minister says that we should not take unilateral action. Does it not strike him as curious that while he opposes unilateral action in arms reduction, he is in favour of unilateral action in arms increase by increasing the number of warheads from 64 to 512? How does he justify that?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Neither this Government nor any previous Government would disclose the number of warheads involved. It is not an escalation but a continuation of a capability that the hon. Gentleman's party is unilaterally seeking to abandon.
If Britain's strategic deterrent is to be retained, what is the most cost-effective way of replacing Polaris-Chevaline and what is the timetable for doing so? It has been suggested first, that we do not need to take a decision now and, secondly, that sea-launched cruise missiles would be a better bet than Trident. I want to deal with both points.
On timing, of course I acknowledge that there is no precise moment in time when our present deterrent ceases to be effective. The process is gradual rather than sudden. But I must tell the House that on the basis of all the advice available to us— advice that is necessarily highly-sensitive— the Polaris-Chevaline system will require replacing in about the mid-1990s. That means that in order to produce a dedicated replacement system with mid-1990s in-service date, the key procurement decisions have had to be taken by now.
Of the alternative systems to Trident, the only one that has been canvassed with any seriousness is a submarine-launched cruise missile system, rather than a ballistic one. That comparison has, of course, already been studied with great care and in depth by the present Government. It was studied in the period before the initial Trident decision was made in 1980, and it was re-examined again before the decision was made to go for the Trident D5 missile rather than the C4. Nothing has happened since then to alter the view the Government came to that a cruise missile system would be less cost-effective.
The arguments are well set out in open government document 80/23 "The Future United Kingdom Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Force" published in July 1980—and I draw particular attention to paragraphs 35 to 43—and in open government document 82/1 "The United Kingdom Trident programme" paragraphs 14 to 16.
I shall explain the basic reasons why in the United Kingdom context the arguments come down in favour of a ballistic rather than a cruise system. First, we must have submarines that are dedicated to the deterrent role. The idea that we can combine both the hunter-killer conventional attack role and the nuclear deterrent role in the same submarine is an operational illusion. The two roles are, in fact in direct conflict. The essence of the hunter-killer role is to get into a position to attack an enemy vessel and then to make that attack. The act of attacking inevitably reveals the presence of a submarine.
In contrast, the absolute essence of the task of the submarine in the nuclear deterrent role is to remain undetected, and therefore invulnerable in all circumstances and at all times, to provide the guaranteed deterrent of an assured second strike capability. The two roles cannot be combined if one's strategic deterrent is to have the credibility that is conferred only by remaining undetected at all times. Britain's strategic deterrent has, therefore, to be placed in submarines that are exclusively and permanently dedicated to that role.
We then have to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of a dedicated ballistic missile submarine force with that of a dedicated cruise missile submarine force of the size necessary to achieve the minimum level of assured destruction assessed to be unacceptable to the Soviet Union. The House will, I am sure, understand that it is only possible to reproduce a general outline of that comparison in non-classified form.
I can outline the essential points, however. Though cruise missiles are cheaper, missile for missile, we need very many more of them to secure the same degree of deterrence achieved by a ballistic missile force. We need more cruise missiles because they carry only one warhead whereas the Trident ballistic missiles will have several. We need more cruise missiles also because cruise missiles will, for the foreseeable future, be much more vulnerable to Soviet defences than ballistic missiles.
Because we need more cruise missiles than ballistic ones— in fact many more— we need more dedicated submarines on which to carry them than the four boats planned for Trident with the resulting additional costs.
The cruise missile solution not only makes for a more vulnerable missile, but for a more vulnerable submarine launch platform. The submarine is made more vulnerable because the maximum range of American sea-launched cruise missiles under development, which we of course would have to use, is around 1,500 nautical miles, giving vastly less sea room in which the submarine can hide than the Trident D5 missile with about three times the range.
The House can be assured that the Government have as much interest as anyone in ensuring that our replacement deterrent is the most cost-effective available. If the cruise missile alternative had been more cost-effective, the Government would have adopted it, but for the reasons that I have spelt out our studies have consistently showed that a submarine-launched ballistic missile deterrent is more cost-effective than a cruise missile one. The cruise missile alternative to Trident would not confer the same assurance of deterrence. It would not be a cheaper means of securing equivalent deterrence. In short, it would be a bad buy.
For any disinclined to believe this, I would point out that five countries either already have or are developing a submarine-launched strategic missile capability— the United States, the USSR, China, France and ourselves. All

have the same preoccupation, albeit from different standpoints, with their own security. All are bound to have done the same intensive analysis as we have done of the relative cost-effectiveness of ballistic and cruise missile systems.
Though both the United States and the USSR are supplementing their ballistic systems with strategic cruise systems, it is significant that all five countries have chosen to place their primary sea-launched strategic nuclear capabilities on ballistic missile, rather than cruise missile, submarines.
For the United Kingdom the only real policy options are between having a credible strategic deterrent which to be cost-effective needs to be ballistic, or having no strategic deterrent at all. For Britain to waste valuable resources on a halfway house deterrent, which in Soviet eyes— and those are the eyes that matter—would represent no real deterrent, would be the worst course of all. It is for these reasons that the Government remain committed to the Trident programme that we put to the electorate last year.

Mr. John Browne: I accept my right hon. Friend's arguments on Trident versus cruise, but what about the independence argument— the control mechanisms and so on?

Mr. Stanley: The degree of independence is exactly the same for Trident as it would be assuming that a cruise agreement with the Americans could be completed on the same terms. It will make no difference. We would have an independent system, as with Polaris.

Mr. James Callaghan: In the Estimates, the cost of Trident is based on an exchange rate of $1·53 to the pound. Now that the rate is $1·20, the cost will be increased substantially. In view of the Government's firm adherence to Trident, is the right hon. Gentleman giving an assurance that that additional cost will be borne in any circumstances, no matter what the rate of exchange and, further, that that will be without cost to the conventional Navy? If so, how will the cost be borne?

Mr. Stanley: Our view of the importance of maintaining the Trident programme is taken against the background that about half the cost is in dollars and that there is some vulnerability because of the exchange rate. Despite that element, our view is still that the overall economic and defence advantage is with continuing that programme.
Procurement is extended over about 18 years and the exchange rate over that lengthy period is a matter for speculation. If there is a deterioration in the exchange rate the overall sterling cost of the Trident programme will increase and fewer funds will be available for conventional forces. That goes without saying. However, we must consider the relative balance of advantage to the country as a whole between the Trident programme and what is at the margin of our conventional expenditure. As a result of Government action we have already increased our defence expenditure to about one fifth more than it was when the right hon. Gentleman's Administration left office.
In conclusion, those of us on both sides of the House who have had the good fortune to serve in the Ministry of Defence know what a privilege and a pleasure it is to work with the armed forces. In the last year I have seen a great deal of the men and women of the Royal Navy and the


Royal Marines—in surface ships and in submarines, in the cold of Arctic Norway, in the heat of the middle and far east, and in the gales of the south Atlantic.
Those at sea with the Royal Navy today have to contend with electronic and engineering complexities that even in the last world war would never have been dreamt of. They also have to contend with the natural elements whose ferocity at times is changeless. The Royal Navy contends with both with skill, with style and with abundant good humour. I know that the whole House wishes the senior service well with both admiration and affection.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: More than in any year that I can recall, given the widespread speculation and publicity about the defence budget, Parliament's assessment of the naval Estimates must turn on certain basic but well-tried judgments. How far are they credible, given Britain's need for maritime power? How far do they take us towards the right size and shape of the Fleet in the late 1980s? How far are they affordable, given the soaring costs of defence technology, in particular Trident? How far do they provide for the right priorities, balance and sustainability, and how far are they in line with NATO's needs? How far do they pursue less nuclear reliant strategies, given the present state of public opinion across the Alliance, and are therefore in line with current thinking about arms control? Finally, how far are they acceptable to public opinion in Britain?
The defence Estimates involve a study of individual trees, not a wood. They make no attempt to draw a panorama of a landscape in which separate forests can be seen in relation to each other.
Let us consider the Navy. We hear of this weapons system or that ship. We know that the Navy has special responsibilities in the eastern Atlantic and the Channel, but nowhere can we find a fundamental up-to-date statement on why we need a navy. The case for a strong Royal Navy is only implied. The case for a strong Merchant Navy is not even mentioned. I suspect that references to the plight of the merchant service by the Minister were afterthoughts.
The sea is the vital link in Britain's growing industrial, commercial and agricultural dependence on imports. All the United Kingdom's international trade must cross the sea. Over 98 per cent. of it is carried in ships. A total of 232 million tonnes was carried by ship in 1980. No other means of transport could cope with such vast quantities of raw materials, food produce and manufactured goods.
That is why the law of the sea treaty is so important to Britain. Why do we not sign it? For a decade or more the United Kingdom has invested time and effort in drawing it up and has taken the lead in its drafting. Reservations about some of its provisions, notably sea-bed mining, are understood. Do the Government have a serious reservation or hesitation about it? It is important to be an original signatory.
Once we sign the treaty, we can work towards acceptable forms. Refusal to sign would mean that we would be the odd one out within the Commonwealth and, Germany apart, the odd one out within the European Community. It is vital for the Royal Navy and Britain to have freedom of passage for ships and aircraft. Should there not have been at least some reference to this in the

defence Estimates? If this matter was dealt with in the Cabinet this morning and it was decided not to make a statement to the House this afternoon before our annual debate on the Navy, that will be seen as a grave contempt of the House.
There is another reason why I feel that the shape of our strategy as set out in the defence Estimates—in so far as it is possible to find a cohesive strategy between the rows of trees set out in it—is wrong. Of course we have commitments to continental Europe which we must respect, but our defence policy does not reflect the priorities which should be held by an island nation. It does not point the way to the effective exercise of sea power. To exercise seapower, as well as having an effective Navy in defence of our interests and in furtherance of them, we must have an effective mercantile marine to sustain it. We must also have an understanding among the electorate and here in Parliament of how seapower affects us all as individuals.
Britain's primary need as one of the most outward-looking and sea-dependent of nations, and as Europe's anchor man within the Alliance, is for maritime power. Almost every sector of Britain's maritime industry is beset by increasingly severe pressure on its operations, thereby posing a variety of threats to the country's trade, performance and security. That is why Jim Slater, general secretary of the National Union of Seamen, and Ken Gill, general secretary of AUEW-TASS, have joined forces to help Britain's crisis-torn shipping and shipbuilding industries. They have produced a plan under which it is intended to reserve Britain's coastal trade and offshore supply sector for United Kingdom flagships alone and to require the extra tonnage needed as a result to be built in British shipyards. The plan would add about 110 ships to the United Kingdom fleet, guaranteeing jobs for 20,000 shipbuilding workers and creating work for 2,500 seafarers. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) will have more to say about the plan when he replies for the Opposition.
I know that Jim Slater and Ken Gill will welcome the setting up of the study announced by the Minister; but that study will have to produce some results, because of the present decline in merchant shipping. It is now down to around 400 vessels with a projection of 300 by the end of this decade and with 5,000 men a year leaving the Fleet. At present there is no provision for training, and more and more of our trade will be carried under foreign flags. Such a crisis can await only a very brief study before it is tackled.
At the latest of the biannual Sealink conferences held in Annapolis this summer, which I, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Conservative Members attended, Admiral Wesley McDonald, the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, warned his audience of parliamentarians, military officers, civil servants and strategists that his primary job was the protection of military resupply and economic shipping, but that this was becoming more difficult to do. This is the other side of the coin. He pointed out that 90 per cent. of military cargoes would have to come by sea, and studies showed that this would need up to 800 sailings a month, but the decline of the Western shipping industry meant that fewer ships would be available to transport the men and materials needed.
SACLANT also estimated that he had access to only half the warships that he needed for the convoy and escort


role and that force goals were simply not being met. He was increasingly concerned about the deficiencies in NATO's ability to sustain a long conflict in the Atlantic. When challenged, the Government insist again and again that they are meeting force goals, but we should recall that we are responsible for providing 70 per cent. of ready forces in the eastern Atlantic. Given the decline in our own surface warship numbers—the Minister did not deny my implication—we are bound to wonder how serious the Government can be when they say that they are meeting force goals. If they are, whom did Admiral McDonald have in mind when he said that force goals were not being met?
It is true that in the spring, after a similar public warning by the Admiral earlier in the year, the Government announced that eight ships which should have gone into the standby squadron would be retained for the active fleet, and that two Rothesay class frigates which were to be stood down would be kept on for perhaps another year or so. In addition, I do not think the Minister will deny that he has come under at least as much, if not more, pressure from the Opposition Front Bench and some of my hon. Friends. Despite the retention of those ships, whom did Admiral McDonald have in mind when he said that force goals were not being met if he was not thinking of us?
In Navy International in March—he uttered the same warnings in June—Admiral McDonald wrote:
Today I have less than half the carriers and escorts I need…I have only two thirds of the SSNs, between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the MPA"—
maritime patrol aircraft—
and far fewer MCMVs than I need.
This warning from SACLANT, together with the longstanding reminders from the Opposition Benches, no doubt explains the Secretary of State's reversal of policy, because it was nothing less.
For the third time, I ask whether we are meeting our force goals. In its early days NATO had a maritime superiority over the Warsaw pact of greater than 3:1. Based on historic examples such as world war 1 and world war 2, that ratio is just about what is needed for a maritime alliance to prevail against a land power with internal lines of communication.

Sir Anthony Buck: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree that he has never met an admiral with enough ships? Does he not also agree that the admiral to whom he has referred is greatly alarmed at the possibility of our nation departing from the nuclear commitment?

Mr. Duffy: What the hon. and learned Gentleman says about admirals is the usual disclaimer which all Ministers and former Ministers make when cornered about their responsibilities. On this occasion, I am not with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not share his criticism of admirals. Indeed, I shall quote another admiral later whom he knows and admires, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find it difficult to reject his advice.
In the last decade or so, because of economic crises, austerity campaigns and cost cutting, along with each nation's attempt to maintain balanced forces, the ratio between NATO and the Warsaw pact has changed completely and is now only 1:1 or less, yet, even though our maritime forces are stretched globally as well as in the NATO area the trend in the number of surface units continues downward.
The president of the United States-based ultra high-tech Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation took the Annapolis conference into the future of naval conflict. Telecommunications were in the midst of an unending revolution, he said, and the problems of managing them would soon be even more complicated by Third world countries crowding into the area. Microelectronics would soon provide embedded computers for weapons systems which would allow them to perform missions now requiring half this Chamber full of equipment.
It was also prophesied that future commanders would be able to detect and target thousands of objects in seconds, but there was caution about the prospects of a radical breakthrough in anti-submarine warfare technology. It was doubted whether there were signs of a broad area sea surveillance system able to see a submarine unless it was fairly near the surface. In other words, technology will not come to the rescue of this Government or the Secretary of State. There are no great new discoveries or strategies just around the corner, and no panaceas in the wings, for the Government's maritime shortfalls or deficiencies. There are just the cold, hard facts of force levels, ships and numbers, which are becoming more disturbing as time goes on and the facts become clearer. This was highlighted in the closing portion of the Minister's speech. His comments about Trident represented more than anything else an apology to those Members on both sides who believe in the importance of a surface fleet. We would give priority to that concept, but the Minister was effectively arguing the opportunity cost of Trident in terms of surface units.
The financial squeeze imposed by the 1981 White Paper extended right across the surface Navy. In addition to the demise of Invincible, Fearless and Intrepid, now rescinded, the sustainable level of the frigate and destroyer force would, other things being equal, have been halved and has been only partially reprieved. The Minister talked about new classes. Let us see them come on stream. Apart from short-term reprieves and including the eight ships that were to have gone into the standby squadron, the planned frigate and destroyer strength is now 50 or 52. No matter how one does the sums, and whatever soundings one takes, we still cannot agree on the number. Conservative Members, including former Navy Ministers, are not given the clear picture that they seek when they table questions about this. Conservative Members may care to consider the written answer at column 88 of the Official Report for 27 February, which shows how difficult it is to get a clear picture of the surface strength.
The question now is whether finance will be provided to maintain a new construction programme large enough to sustain that reduced force. It is disturbing enough to note that the strength is now only 50 or 52—a decline of at least 15 per cent., perhaps nearer 20 per cent., since the Minister took office. The Minister knows that one must have ships coming on stream to sustain that strength, because ships are going out all the time. Five frigates and a destroyer are going out this year, and six frigates next year. The Minister himself gave that information to the House. Ships are going out in larger numbers than they are coming in.
Delays in completing the latest of the Navy's Sea Dart missile destroyers will mean that only one major surface warship and one submarine will be completed for the Navy this year. That is the smallest number of ships to join the


Fleet in any year this century. Only one destroyer, one frigate and one submarine were completed last year. At this rate, there will be no warship building at all by the end of the century. The same applies to merchantmen. Yet numbers are vital, numbers have a quality of their own—or is the Navy now firmly in the grip of structural disarmament?
The Minister mentioned the type 23. Perhaps the most compelling argument for its introduction was that it would be cheaper. When it was announced, a figure as low as C60 million was mentioned. What is the present cost? Has it become gold-plated like some other classes? We have been hearing throughout the year that the first order was being placed this year, but what about the next order and the one after that? What numbers do the Government have in mind? Conservative Members should be trying to wring that information out of the Government. We also need to know how long the type 23 is to run.
Perhaps the Government have realised that we have been investing too much in costly' and sophisticated new equipment. In The Naval Review, a magazine circulated only to serving naval officers, one officer writes:
Reliability…means that any weapons system will work the moment I want it.
Recalling his experience in the Falklands, he added:
There were times when mine did not.
His report highlights the fact that sophisticated new equipment might be motivating structural disarmament. It might also be too much for crews to handle. The new equipment also gave rise to a large number of health problems.
Support for that officer's view that simple, easy-to-use and, one hopes, cheaper weapons might hold the key to efficient ship defence in the future came from Admiral Sir James Eberle, a very distinguished former Cincfleet and latterly Cincnavhome, whom I know the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) admires. Admiral Eberle, who supervised the assembly of the task force, is on record as saying:
Many of us had very deep worries about how well our ships and weapons would do in the South Atlantic. Frankly, people's expectations weren't very high. Reliability wasn't nearly good enough; some systems obviously didn't work.
He continued:
The navy has allowed itself to be taken in by sophistication. We sacrificed reliability and simplicity for highly complex weapons that were highly unreliable.
The Select Committee heard as much this year.
In that context, Admiral Eberle comments that, when he was briefed by civilian colleagues at the Ministry of Defence before appearing at a Select Committee,
I was told to say no more than I possibly had to. If we put as much effort into preventing problems as we do in stopping skeletons coming out of the cupboard, things would be a bloody sight better.
Is not the Navy in danger of being smothered by procurement? Cannot lead times, and thus costs, be reduced? When will we do something about Bath? When will someone take those people by the scruff and preferably get rid of most of them? Must we commit ourselves to pure, ever more sophisticated and costly Rolls-Royce warships? It is doubtful whether there will be a commensurate increase in naval Votes, given what we have heard from the Minister today about the Trident programme. How will this affect the proposed new offshore patrol vessel codenamed OPV Mk 3, which is

currently under discussion? What about the review that the Navy is carrying out of the shipping that it will need to maintain its ability to mount amphibious operations from the mid-1990s?
The most radical developments of the next few years may well occur not in the shipyards but in the infrastructure, manning and training of the Navy, and that is where our priorities should now be. The Government never tire of telling us that Trident will absorb only 3 per cent. of the total defence budget over the period of its procurement and only 6 per cent. of the equipment budget, but the absorption of 6 per cent. of the equipment budget by Trident is almost double the 3·2 per cent. being spent this year on "war and contingency stocks". At the annual conference of NATO's parliament in Brussels earlier this month my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and I heard more vigorous claims for those two items and sustainability generally from all quarters than for anything else. We heard no calls for the type of system that the Minister was defending today.
As the Falklands war showed, modern warfare consumes a far greater amount of ammunition and all kinds of stores than had been estimated. Linked closely with inadequate force levels, therefore, is the question whether we can properly support the forces that we have. For example, do we have enough missiles, gun ammunition, sonobuoys and spare parts? In other words, what about the bread and butter? And can we get those vital sustainability items to our platforms whenever and wherever required, given the experience of the Falklands?
What is being done to redress the critical inadequacy of Alliance mine warfare capabilities? My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan will have more to say about that later. That is where the greatest need and perhaps the greatest gap exists. Is the Minister satisfied with survivability as well as sustainability in vital areas such as ASW and air defence equipment, electronic warfare and communications systems? In the light of the Falklands experience, is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to improve damage control? Despite all that sorrowful experience, one still hears that there are gaps.
The use of civilian assets is on the other side of the defence spectrum. Why is there no reference to the recommendations of the joint committee comprising the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Transport and the General Council of British Shipping to stockpile such items as light guns, "chaff' radar and torpedo decoys for the self-defence of merchant ships? Is it not now perfectly clear that, wherever possible, we must back up high-priced warships with low-cost force multipliers such as portable soft kill defences, helicopter decks and a replenishment capability for earmarked reinforcement ships?
The defence statement said that the total of 66,400 officers and men in the services before the 1981 defence review would be reduced by 11,000 in the early 1990s. With three shore establishments closing by the end of 1985 and others later, the intention is to reduce the number of men ashore by 25 per cent. between 1981 and 1988, and thereafter a further reduction of 15 per cent. is expected. Inevitably, that will mean that more sailors' part two professional training will have to be done at sea. Will there be sufficient ships to meet current tasks and give younger officers and ratings practical experience at sea? Will not more sea time, with a substantial reduction in shore training, affect signing on for further service, particularly among the more experienced?
Is it not the case that, over and above those problems, the Navy is still trying to make larger manpower cuts than previously planned, while operating more ships than the number for which allowance has been made? The House will welcome the Minister's announcement of an increase in the Royal Naval Reserves complement.
We come to affordability. Is there any truth in the article on 25 November in The Sunday Times, which stated that the current examination of long-term costings reveals that, on current commitments, the Navy is £1·5 billion over budget? The Secretary of State has assured the House that a review of the cost of buying Trident is to be speeded up in response to fears of a serious increase in cost. Since he made that statement, the financial pressure has increased as the pound continues to wilt in the shadow of the United States dollar and the problems of public spending become less tractable.
This year's defence Estimates used a sterling-dollar rate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) reminded the House, of $1·53 to the pound, but this week the rate has dropped below $1·20 to the pound. A drop of 20 per cent. in the exchange rate boosts Trident's cost, at 1983–84 prices, by about 10 per cent. It is instructive to compare current with previous estimates of the Trident programme. Because of the limitation of time I shall not cite the figures, but it is instructive for Conservative Members to look at the past four years and see how, year after year, Government figures have steadily increased. Initially, about 30 per cent. of the work was done in the United States, with 70 per cent. scheduled for Britain. By June of this year the split had become 45:55, and it is now estimated that the fall in the sterling-dollar rate has raised the dollar component above 50 per cent.
There is a curious arrangement by which Britain pays for the American components in advance and loses interest which would otherwise accrue. There are Conservative Members as well as the senior figures in the Navy, Army, and Air Force who see the Trident programme as gravely damaging to a coherent defence policy for Britain. In June, in the debate on the defence Estimates, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces defended Trident, as he did this afternoon. My reply to him is that NATO is a political as well as a military organisation.
The deployment of cruise underlined the importance of public understanding and support. I am therefore bound to ask him, whatever his defence of Trident, whether he will be able to carry it through. We must carry a more sensitive public opinion with us than we had to do at one time. The reassurance of public opinion is an important job for the Government as well as for NATO. Reassurance is a complement of the policy of deterrence.
At one time the basic Allied approach of adequate strength, political solidarity, the pursuit of a more stable relationship between East and West and the repeated commitment to significant arms control measures provided a sound basis for public support, but not so today. We now have to go beyond that. The emphasis now must be on reduced tension, lower levels of armaments and the pursuit of less-reliant nuclear strategies, through improved conventional forces.
If, earlier this month in Brussels, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and I heard one bid more than any other—apart from those which I have mentioned, which are bound up with sustainability—it was for conventional forces right across the Alliance. That

call came from American senators and congressmen as well as from Dutch and German Socialist MPs. At that recent conference we were reminded by some speakers that General Rogers, SACEUR, had told them. either individually or in speeches, which they had heard during the year, that he was looking for a better infrastructure and improved sustainability—not more missiles or improved strategic weapons systems such as Trident. In so far as this country insists on going ahead in this way, it will only be duplicating the United States' contribution, and in doing so it will cut across NATO's and Britain's priorities.
We have the means and the capacity, thanks to ET, to place more reliability on conventional arms and thereby fulfil all the more effectively our maritime obligations to NATO. We lack the will on the part of the Government. We lack a credible, affordable naval policy likely to yield the right size and shape of the Fleet. The Government prefer other priorities, arising from a different conceptual framework. If the Government continue to bear the "£10 billion headache", as Max Hastings put it in The Standard tonight, we shall not get the right size and shape of the Fleet. Whatever economies the Secretary of State secures, if the Government proceed much further down this road they will be brought up sharply—the Daily Telegraph warned of this on 16 May last—against a further defence review as well as an erosion of our conventional fighting capability. That is the prospect which the Government have shown no sign of confronting.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I am not sure that I altogether followed the argument of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) at the end of his speech. I simply content myself with saying that the House always recognises the warm sincerity in anything that the hon. Gentleman says on this subject.
At the end of the last Session, on an initiative of the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and myself—the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was a driving force—the all-party maritime affairs group was established with the excellent Commander Rankin as secretary. The group has begun its work. It has almost 100 members and is organised along the lines of the former parliamentary and scientific committee. Put shortly, the group's purpose is to inform Members of Parliament better about maritime matters and to draw the attention of Government and Parliament to matters of significance and national importance in maritime affairs. I have no mandate of any sort to speak for that group, but I am sure that I speak for all its members and many others both inside and outside the House when I express deep anxiety about the maritime scene. Seafaring is in crisis, and it is necessary for us to extricate ourselves from this position.
I should like to bring four matters to the attention of Ministers, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, whom I greatly admire for his practical experience and competence.
My first point follows the comments by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. The deadline for signature of the convention on the law of the sea is 9 December. More than 140 countries out of the 159 members of the United Nations have signed the convention. Those signatories include the whole of the European Community—with the exceptions of Germany, where there are special


problems and Britain—and many members of the Commonwealth. We should be given a plain answer. Why has the United Kingdom not signed the convention? It is said in the corridors of the House that the matter was discussed this morning in Cabinet. If that is so, the House is entitled to know the decision. The convention is an attempt to replace anarchy with order, and in my opinion it is right that the United Kingdom should sign.
Secondly, I should like to come to the state of the merchant marine. My hon. Friend referred to it in his speech which was wholly admirable, especially at the end when he discussed trident and cruise. The hon. Member for Attercliffe also referred to the merchant marine. There is no doubt that a big, effective and prosperous merchant shipping fleet is the fourth arm of Britain's defence. That has been stated often. It is true. More than 90 per cent. of our trade is carried in ships. Without ships to carry goods, raw materials and food to and from our country, we should neither work nor eat as we are accustomed to. Our whole standard of living depends upon shipping.
The state of our merchant marine gives rise to the gravest possible anxiety. In 1975, we had 1,600 ships—50 million tonnes deadweight. We are now reduced to just over 700 ships, a deadweight tonnage of 18·5 million. That is a decline of nearly two thirds within eight years. I understand that the General Council of British Shipping estimates a fleet of no more than 400 to 500 ships by the end of 1986.
There is worse to come. United Kingdom shipowners have ordered less than 100,000 tonnes deadweight during the past 12 months. During the past three months no orders have been placed for ships, yet, merely to maintain the present level of our merchant fleet, orders need to be given for about 1 million tonnes deadweight each year.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend said that there will be an in-depth study. There is no need for that because we are aware of the position now. If his Department does not know, it should and could find out the facts quickly. What is needed, is urgent action.
The position, which was already serious, will be exacerbated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's 1984 Budget measures. They removed the 100 per cent. first year allowances, as the House will remember, and also the free depreciation which the shipping industry had previously and specially received. At the same time, the Chancellor altered the overseas earnings tax relief provisions. That hit seafarers hard. It has probably also increased staff costs in British ships this year by no less than 3 per cent. Those measures have adversely affected costs and investment in the industry.
The implications of a declining merchant navy for defence, as the hon. Gentleman said, for maritime employment, for our balance of payments, the carriage of our trade and reserves for the Fleet are well known.
I understand that the General Council of British Shipping has proposed a number of measures to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reverse the current disastrous trends. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will say immediately to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that he should consider those proposals with the utmost attention, with a view to implementing at least some of them.
I hope that in his 1985 Budget the Chancellor will heed those representations, because at the moment there is no other leading maritime country which treats its shipping industry as badly as we do.
I am all for competition, but the competition which the British merchant fleet is experiencing at present in comparison with other nations is unfair, and something must be done about it.
I come to my third point. I thought that the hon. Member for Attercliffe used excellent language when he spoke about naval shipbuilding. His question about the cost of the type 23 frigate was pertinent. When he said that numbers have a quality of their own—I think that that was something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State once said—I wholly agree with him. I also agree with the hon. Member for Attercliffe when he said that we do not want gold-plated ships. We want more, simpler and cheaper ships. We could have them if we tried. We used to have them in the war, as many of us in the House remember well. There is no reason why we should not have them now.
I listened to my hon. Friend when he described the size of the Soviet submarine fleet. I am bound to say yet again—I knew the figures before, of course—that I was horrified by what I heard. We have nothing like enough ships to begin to cope with that menace. The sooner we alter our procurement policy to ensure that we receive better value for money, the better.
I wish to share with the House my deep anxieties about another matter—the present position of the hydrographic department and the naval surveying service. The House is aware that I have raised this matter before. I do not apologise for doing so again. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I pay a warm tribute to the splendid men and women in the Navy, and their civilian counterparts. Their competence, skills and dedication are a credit to the service and to our nation.
It is invidious to mention individuals, but I hope that the House will not mind if I refer directly to two of them. One of them is Rear-Admiral Ritchie, an outstanding Hydrographer of the Navy, who is now retiring after 10 years of work at the International Hydrographic Bureau. The second is Rear-Admiral Sir David Haslam, who retires in February after 10 years as Hydrographer. They are excellent men. They have been outstanding leaders in this subject.
My interest in hydrography derives not just from the fact that the hydrographic department is in Taunton but because, like countless other mariners, sailing professionally or for recreation, I am a wholehearted admirer of the high quality of the publications that it produces. As the House will confirm, the term "Admiralty chart", the only world series of charts, is synonymous all over the world with the highest quality. We are proud of the hydrographic department in Taunton. There are many good reasons for being proud. Unlike almost all other defence efforts, it is no mere consumer of resources. It earns huge amounts for the taxpayer from sales. It is a pity that the "blue paper", if I may call it that, does not set out how much is earned, not least in foreign currency.
The department is also indispensable to Great Britain's general trading effort. Remembering, as I said earlier, how much of Britain's trade is carried in ships, the point is obvious.
With the resources of the sea bed awaiting commercial exploitation, the need for competent and thorough survey work, particularly around our own waters, is re-emphasised.
Last but by no means least, as my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers will know well, the development of Trident and the towed RAY frigate and the need to be effective in anti-submarine warfare make it plain that hydrography is crucial to the defence of the realm. On every count, therefore, hydrography is crucial, yet this arm of the service is dangerously neglected. It lacks proper attention and adequate resources. The history of its management by the bureaucracy in recent years is a tale of muddle, failure to make decisions and incompetence on a staggering scale.
It will be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that the recommendations of the hydrographic study group of 1974 have never been implemented, although they are still valid. The House may well ask why not. What is the point of having a study group—we are now to have this other study group—if its recommendations are not followed?
I shall give the House five examples of what I described. First, a glance at one of the charts included in the 1983 report of the Hydrographer shows that well below one third of Great Britain's coastline is surveyed to modern standards. Surely that is a scandal. Secondly, there are three large ships in the surveying fleet—the Hecla and Hecate, commissioned in 1975, and the Hydra, commissioned in 1966. Those ships are 16 or 17 years old.
The House will remember the brilliant service that those ships gave as hospital ships during the Falklands conflict, where their work earned universal praise and admiration for the men who sailed in them, yet nothing is scheduled to replace them. What is the position? Are they to sail on until they fall to bits, rusted rotten? It is right, I am sure, to demand that a programme for their replacement should be announced in the near future.
Thirdly, I turn to the smaller ships in the surveying fleet. It is good that the Gleaner has been commissioned, and there is a new coastal survey vessel. However, the three inshore survey craft in the fleet are now 25 years old and are due, I believe, to be paid off at the end of the year. It seems extraordinary to me that, with only a month to go, we do not know what is to replace them.
The 1982 report by the Hydrographer told us that hovermarine surface effect ship trials were under way. They were, I believe, successful. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us whether that is so. I hope that he will tell us, either today or very soon, what will replace the inshore craft, and how soon.
Fourthly, I turn to the civilian side. In 1978 the civilian complement, almost all based at Taunton, numbered 1,066. By 1983, it had fallen to 987. In the business of management, the bureaucrats seem to proceed by a series of salami cuts. That is not the way to get the best effort out of some dedicated people, many of whom are my good friends in my home town. The nation owes much to their devotion, as was demonstrated at the time of the Falklands conflict.
I do not know what the present numbers are. Last year's report by the Hydrographer has still not been published, although we have nearly reached the end of 1984.
Who in the Ministry of Defence is responsible for this inexcusable dilatoriness? By the time the report appears it will be almost a year out of date and much less useful

than if it had been published earlier. I consider late reporting to be an insult to the House and to the taxpayer. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us an undertaking that the Hydrographer's reports will be published more promptly in future.
I believe that I am right to say that, when the figures for last year are published, we shall learn that the civilian numbers have been reduced below 900 and that further cuts are intended.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to state plainly that the process of cuts should stop. It is no longer the fat that is being cut, if there ever was any; it is the bone that is being cut into. If, there are any more cuts in numbers, functions will have to be reduced, and that will be very much to the disadvantage of the hydrographic fleet.
As the hydrography department is a productive department, it should surely be possible to exempt it from the rule of cuts by numbers, irrespective of function, applied by the Ministry of Defence. There should be some formula under which allowance is made for the productive nature of the work that Taunton is engaged in.
I have a sneaking feeling that the reduction in the scope of the official hydrographic effort is to some extent a deliberate policy. I hope that I am wrong—no doubt my right hon. Friend will tell me if I am—in thinking that some inexperienced bureaucrat believes that we can safely turn the whole fleet—or a major part of it-over to the private sector.
No one is more passionate for the private sector than I am. I earn my living in industry, and always have done during the years that I have been in the House. I do so partly because I value my independence and partly because I believe that, if it is possible for an hon. Member to be active in business, he may prove to be a better judge of many practical matters which are discussed in the House, such as taxes, trade and many aspects of commerce and administration. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members may agree with me or not, but that is my view, and I am happy to see a reinforcement of the national surveying effort by commercial firms. There is much that they can usefully do. However, it would be folly further to reduce our naval hydrographic effort. Any reduction in the naval supervision would be a most dangerous course from the point of view of defence, and would break an undertaking which my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was good enough to give me a couple of years ago in an answer to a question.
I do not believe, either, that such a course of action would necessarily provide the best value for the taxpayer's money. We must maintain a strong staff of naval specialists and they must remain in overall command of the effort, whichever Government Department is, for the time being, responsible for the bulk of the funding.
I am sure that it is a matter of infinite regret to many hon. Members besides myself that although a number of these points have been made before in interviews with Ministers and in public debate both in the House and elsewhere, the Defence Ministry has treated hydrography with a carelessness that verges on the discreditable. I hope that Ministers will be prepared to give the House credible assurances that that will cease to be the case in future.
I repeat what I said when I began my speech. In my view our maritime affairs are in a state of deep crisis, but


what is wrong can be put right. I have confidence in my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department. I look to them to see that what is wrong is put right.

Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has made a trenchant speech, and I agree with every word of it. I agree with his commitment to the necessity to sign the law of the sea convention. I hope that the Government will carefully assess their position on the issue. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the decline and serious state of our merchant marine. I agree with him about the need to consider the high cost of some of the surface ships that we are producing at the moment, and whether there might not be alternative methods. I agree with his every word about the hydrographic service, both as someone who formerly had responsibility for the Royal Navy and as someone who sails around our shores.
I have an apology to make to the Minister. I have a long-standing engagement this evening which would have been very difficult to cancel, so I may not be in my place throughout the debate, although I will try to return. I hope that neither the Minister nor the hon. Member who winds up for the Labour party will take my absence as a disservice.
The Minister has made a speech on the central question that faces the Navy—the Trident expenditure—and has produced detailed arguments for the Government's case to an extent that we have not heard before. I thank him for that. I shall try to deal with the matter as he suggested we should deal with it—in a cool, rational and dispassionate way.
The facts facing the overall defence budget are stark, and are only just becoming clear to the country. For well over a year, I have warned of the dangers to the defence budget in 1986–87. In the February White Paper, for the first time, we saw that there was to be a dramatic drop from a funding of 3 per cent. for 1985–86—an increase in real terms—to zero growth.
My own fear is that we will see an absolute reduction in the defence budget for 1986–87. That will put intolerable pressures on all the armed services—not just the Royal Navy.
It would be absurd to pretend that the Trident programme alone is responsible for the pressure on the defence budget. However, that programme now represents a massive cost to the defence budget, and the way in which it has been arranged has put the heaviest pressure on the naval budget. When we first committed ourselves to the Trident programme, the cost was an addition to the defence budget. It is only in recent years that it has been placed on the naval budget.
As many aspects of the Navy are now under review, it is very sad that the Minister failed to say anything about the sword of Damocles that hangs over the royal dockyards, which have now existed for months under the prospect of a report recommending an agency provision of shattering proportions. Some hon. Members may not realise the enormity of what is proposed. Men who have for decades given service to our country would be placed on a five-year contract and employed by private

contractors who could, after five years, withdraw those contracts. The men would lose all their certainty of employment.
Privatisation in many other fields has never dreamed of treating the work force in such a way. At least there has been continuity of employment. I must urge the Minister not to pursue the Levine agency proposal. It is damaging to the dockyards, to confidence in the Government's word, to employment and deeply damaging to the servicing of the Royal Navy.
We do not know what will happen. We have accepted that a frigate and a submarine should go out to private contract——

Mr. Douglas: We?

Dr. Owen: Well, I have accepted it.

Mr. Douglas: Oh.

Dr. Owen: The reality is that they are going out to private contract. That has been proposed repeatedly by Select Committees and, whatever we might feel about it, that is what is happening. Having accepted that reality, however, prejudging the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of private repair as opposed to dockyard repair is unfair in the extreme to the work force.
The Trident programme is the central issue which faces the Government in formulating defence policy and the Royal Navy. The official cost of Trident in March 1984 was given to the House as £8·729 billion, with 45 per cent. of the money being spent in the United States. The estimate was calculated on the then exchange rate of $1·53 to the pound. It is now $1·20 to the pound. Each drop of 1 cent costs an additional £26 million, so the cost of the Trident programme has risen by £780 million since March. That gives a new estimate of £9·480 billion at 1983–84 prices. When that figure is converted to approximate 1984–85 prices by adding a modest 4 per cent. for United States inflation and 5 per cent. for United Kingdom inflation, we get an estimate of£9·9 billion. It is effectively£10 billion, the inflation factor contributing between £420 million and £450 million to the total. That is a pretty conservative estimate of the present running costs of the Trident programme. Others are putting it higher, at £11 billion or even £12 billion. Let us assume, then, that the programme costs £10 billion. Each £100 million of extra cost of Trident means a cut of 0·1 per cent. in real terms in the defence budget. If we take an assumption of zero growth in the 1986–87 budget and an addition of £1·2 billion in extra costs, there will be an absolute reduction of 1·2 per cent. in the defence budget in 1986–87. Nobody believes that that will not be devastating to the defence budget.
The problem in all this is that the dollar might fall against the pound but at that time the British economy would be in reasonably good condition and could absorb the difference. If however, we were to have a one-dollar pound, which is not wholly out of the question, we should be at maximum weakness and our defence budget would be under incredible pressure. Expenditure on Trident so far has been only about £200 million, but £600 million has been committed. By 1988, one third of the total, or more than £3 billion, will have been committed. To revise the cost of Trident at about £10 billion at 1984–85 prices would mean that it would account for 13 per cent. to 14 per cent., instead of the previous estimate of 11 per cent., of the total


defence equipment budget and 36 per cent. to 38 per cent., instead of the original 33 per cent., of the Royal Navy's budget.
The peak of Trident expenditure will coincide with the Royal Navy's heavy building programme for new ships. Between 1985 and 1995 there are to be built eight new type 23 frigates at a cost of £200 million each and at a gross cost of £1·6 billion, and a hunter-killer submarine programme costing £1 billion, type 2400 submarines are going out at £100 million and the EH101 helicopter programme is to cost £1·2 billion. Above all, what will happen in regard to replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, the specialist amphibious vessels which are vital to the Royal Marines and the southern flank?

Mr. Stanley: There is one misapprehension under which the right hon. Gentleman is labouring. I should like to draw attention to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a letter to the Leader of the Liberal party. He was quite clear about the impact of the Trident programme on the Royal Navy's expenditure. He wrote:
As for the effect on Royal Navy expenditure I would emphasise that individual Service programmes are not considered in isolation from the remainder of the Defence programme.
It is therefore not correct to envisage the burden of Trident falling exclusively on a limited area, which is now perceived to be the naval budget. We take a tri-service view of priorities in the defence budget.

Dr. Owen: That has always been the case, but the fact remains that if it were to fall only on the naval budget, it would represent 36 per cent. to 38 per cent. of that budget. I am reassured that it will not fall exclusively, but it will still fall on the three services and I look on the defence effort as being across the services.
We must face the fact that if Trident continues, it will gouge critical items of equipment out of our crucial defences and gravely weaken our conventional defence. If the Government were pursuing a steady 3 per cent. per year real terms increase in the defence budget beyond 1986–87, the cost could be absorbed, but they are not. The fact is that we shall not make our conventional commitment to NATO which the new Secretary-General, Lord Carrington, wants us to make and which we all know we shall have to make in Europe if we are to avoid the consequences of Senator Nunn's amendment. That was just a warning shot across the bows, but there is no doubt that the United States Senate will not put up with the net European contribution to its conventional defence effort during the next decade being zero growth. There has to be some growth in that contribution. Against that background, I shall now consider the alternative to Trident of which the Minister spoke.
I urge the Minister not to go on talking about the independent nuclear deterrent. We do not talk about independent aircraft, independent Lance or an independent brigade of military. We are making our defence effort within the context of NATO. Any naval or nuclear effort that we make is a contribution to NATO and it is in that sense that we must examine what we contribute in terms of nuclear defence. I believe—I have made it quite clear in the past and stick by my words—that if Britain can afford to make a contribution to the nuclear defence of NATO, it will strengthen the overall nuclear deterrence in NATO. However, I believe that that is a mimimum deterrence.
I take issue with the Minister on his talk of the five nuclear weapons states. It is not possible to compare Britain with any of the other four. Two are by any standards super-powers, so nobody believes that we should match the weapon system that Britain might contribute to NATO with the Soviet Union or the United States. The Minister then mentioned China. China is wholly independent and potentially a super-power. The comparison is not realistic.
The most realistic comparison is France, but the difference between Britain and France is that we are wholeheartedly committed to the integrated command structure of NATO. We are also in a quite different position. Moreover, France is not making a replacement decision. It is not as yet facing the fact that its submarine force will be out of date, as the Minister said, in the mid-1990s. When France decides in the early part of the next century to replace its nuclear submarine fleet, what it will be able to afford is an open question.
I shall now examine the alternatives and the criteria which the Minister gave. He said that if we have a submarine-launched deterrent system it must be dedicated to the deterrent role. I disagree. I know that the Minister examined the issue closely in 1980 and he tells us that he looked at it again in 1983. I looked at it extremely hard between 1977 and 1979. If we take the Minister's view of a minimum deterrent having to have a super-sophisticated ballistic missile system capable of penetrating the Galosh defences around Moscow, I have no doubt that we come out with Trident. However, I do not believe that those are any longer realistic criteria against which we should judge a minimum deterrent contribution to NATO. We must consider the alternatives. They are not perfect. Anyone who pretends that submarine-launched cruise, were that thought advisable, is a better system than Trident, judged by any military or naval criteria, is deluding himself.
The question that is now being asked by the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, The Standard, and increasingly by serious commentators looking at Britain's force levels for the next 10 or 20 years, is can we afford the price of purchasing such a super-sophisticated system? Trident is not just a natural follow-on from Polaris. It is a substantial increase in megatonnage and warhead numbers. It means that we are contributing to the arms race. Therefore, we are not levelling out at a Polaris level.
Then comes the question of the deterrent role having to be dedicated. The nuclear-carrying cruise missiles that are now being deployed in ever-increasing numbers in the United States navy, will not be wholly dedicated to the nuclear deterrent role. They will have a mixed role. It may be said that on top they have a super-sophisticated deterrent system.
It is interesting that the Sturgeon, Permit and Los Angeles classes are first going for eight cruise missiles using existing torpedo tubes and then increasing it by 12, adding a vertical launch and adapting and modifying existing submarines, making 20 in all. All the arguments have been gone through.
One may come to a different conclusion. The submarine launch is not the only one. Many serious people have said that the Polaris system should be replaced with a similar system and have argued the case for that. I prefer to stick with existing technology.
I then ask what the Soviet navy is doing. I do not need to ask very hard, because the Government describe in their White Paper how


the USSR is actively engaged in a test programme to develop long-range cruise missiles for launch from ground, sea and air platforms. These will be primarily for nuclear strike and have ranges estimated up to 3,000 km. The air- and sea-launched versions have the potential for intercontinental strategic strike, depending on the platforms.
The cruise missile, as presently designed by the United States, has a range of 2,500 km. Its warhead is between 200 and 250 kilotonnes. Britain is after a different type of deterrent from the one it has had before. It is a contribution to NATO. It is a minimum deterrent. To say that it is necessary to have that vast number of cruise missiles to produce saturation defence is to take a criterion which is unrealistic. The criterion taken is to match Trident.
If one is in the business of spending money on a submarine-launched cruise missile to get exactly the same effect as Trident, I have no doubt that the Minister's figures are correct. One needs a large number of cruise missiles and dedicated extra SSNs and that will be costly.

Mr. Stanley: First, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States is making as its assured second strike capability a cruise missile system? They are certainly not. They are resting on a ballistic system. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge from his previous background that the criterion is not a minimum deterrent? The only justification for being in the deterrent business, with all that is involved, is not a minimum deterrent but what is a credible deterrent to the Soviet Union. The right hon. Gentleman is not addressing that issue.

Dr. Owen: Minimum and credible are exactly the same thing.

Mr. Michael Mates: No.

Dr. Owen: Yes they are. There is no point having a minimum deterrent unless it is credible. Therefore, the question is: what is the minimal level that is credible? The assumption throughout the Minister's speech is that only Trident is credible. He might even tone that down to say that only Polaris is credible. He may say that the decision was taken to go for Chevaline and, therefore, the Moscow criterion is still the most vital element of credibility.
In retrospect, to be blunt, I think that once the antiballistic missile treaty was signed in the early 1970s, it was probably unwise to go for the hardened programme. But I took my share of responsibility for continuing with the hardening of Chevaline from 1977 onwards, largely because so much had been spent on it and there was a great political danger of a public cancellation affecting the credibility of the deterrent. It was perfectly reasonable not to disclose a decision on the updating of a weapons system which was going through at the time. I do not think that we would have lost anything by making it known. But the decision was taken by the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments, and I am prepared to support that. The only difference in the Government's announcement was the name of the Chevaline programme.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider another criterion which arises as a result of SLCMs — verification? Surely that is important if, as we are led to believe, the Minister would wish to use that as some sort of negotiating counter. It is a highly provocative weapon, not one which is likely to result in any enthusiasm for planned disarmament.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the problems of submarine, air and land-launched cruise missiles. Their verification is a serious problem in arms control. But we must face the fact that they are already being deployed in massive numbers — over 4,000 SLCMs will be deployed by the United States and substantial numbers are being deployed by the Soviet Union. We are into the problem of verification. Many of us talked of that issue in the context of the SALT 2 agreement. There was a strong case for limiting cruise missile deployment on verification grounds. That is one factor that must be borne in mind, but it is only one factor. It is one reason why I would put any of the deterrent systems on the table for negotiation.
In the context of deep cuts in nuclear weapons, I would consider whether the price that we pay is worth it. But I am not prepared to disown the logical, rational case that the contribution to the NATO deterrent is not solely and exclusively the United States'. If we can do that by maintaining a strong conventional commitment to NATO, many of our NATO allies would like Britain to make that contribution. That has been the view of successive German Governments and I think that it is the view of French Governments.
The question is: what is credible for a country that is in economic decline, that is having to cut is defence budget, that is unable to make all the contribution that it wants to conventional defence, and is having to make difficult decisions across the whole range of defence? I cannot put it more bluntly than that.
The Minister is making a false comparison. He is making a comparison between Trident and a ballistic missile system. He is arguing that we either have everything or nothing. He may well end up with nothing, and that is the most serious point to be made. The point was made well by someone who said that the deterrent had to carry credibility with public opinion in Britian. It has to carry credibility with opinion in the services. There are growing signs that people in the services are questioning that.
After all, we are talking about whether we shall have the Royal Marines again. The Government nearly got rid of the Royal Marines in 1981. They made cuts in the defence budget in 1981 that put our forces in severe jeopardy. Fortunately, we learned enough from the tragic experience of the south Atlantic war to remind us that those cuts would do great damage.
Britain is now facing a climate of opinion on defence which is not dissimilar to the climate of opinion in the 1930s. We are not living up to our defence contribution. The record that the Minister points to over the past few years is a good one. The Government have reason to be given credit. Frankly, the Prime Minister of the previous Labour Government also merits a tribute. It was he who in 1977 had the courage to take through the NATO decision for a 3 per cent. increase in a difficult expenditure climate.
Many of the figures that the Minister now prays in aid had their foundation laid in the 1977–78 decision of the Labour Government. The tragedy of modern times is the way that the Labour party has moved away from its solid commitment to NATO and the knowledge that NATO is a nuclear and a conventional deterrence collective, decision-making body. One does not go to Moscow and negotiate with the Kremlin on the consequences of taking American nuclear bases out of Britain. If one wants to


make that choice, one does it first and foremost in the context of NATO. One does not fall for the oldest ploy in the game, and for the 1978 statement that the Soviets used to try to fragment NATO by saying that they would save NATO countries from the threat of nuclear attack if NATO disowned nuclear deterrence. Not even the Dutch, Belgian Norwegian or Danish Socialists have fallen for that naked ploy by the Soviet Union, and it is a tragedy—although we do not expect anything else from the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition's foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who was one of the most distinguished Secretaries of State that this country has ever had, should lend his name to that.
The issue will not go away. The Government have made the wrong decision over Trident. It is the hardest decision ever to have to reassess, but when the Minister said at the beginning of his speech that he wanted to make the Government's commitment clear beyond any doubt, those of us who had heard such words before knew very well that that was the start of making things far from clear. The fact is that there is deep doubt within the Ministry of Defence, and among some of the most serious people to be advising the Minister, about the rightness of that decision on Trident. The Minister will best serve the interests of this country during the next 20 to 30 years by reassessing that decision—and the sooner the better.

Sir Antony Buck: It is always interesting, although difficult, to follow the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). I agreed with him in his castigation of the Socialist party and its defence policy, but I found myself in some difficulty as to his own attitude. I believe that the previous Labour Administration continued to update Polaris by going for Chevaline for precisely the same reasons as the Government think it appropriate today to update our nuclear deterrent. I hope that Opposition Members will not suggest that Conservative Members do not go in for open government, because the Labour Government updated Polaris with the Chevaline programme without saying one iota to the House.

Dr. Owen: The idea that it was just the Labour Government is complete and absolute nonsense. The decision was initially made by the Heath Government but, rightly, it was never announced to the House then.

Sir Antony Buck: I think that I implied that the original decision was made by the Socialist Administration without giving any indication of what was going on. It was probably a mistake not to make the original decision clear to the House. I concede that, and I can see no reason why it should not have been. As an Under-Secretary of State, I was not privy to that decision. But Opposition Members cannot castigate us about open government when all the major secret spending was undertaken by the Heath Government and was then implemented by the Socialist Administration. I accept that it might have been appropriate for the Heath Administration to have said that they intended to update Polaris, but our intention to maintain an independent deterrent has always been part of Conservative policy. We have never been deflected from that policy, although that has not always been true of Opposition Members.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with the speeches that have already been made and we look forward to that. I think that he is speaking from the Front Bench for the first time in a defence debate and we welcome him. I think that he has answered questions before, but that this is the first time that he is to conclude a defence debate. We look forward with interest to his speech. Of course, from his experience as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office he will have had considerable contact with the armed forces, and his experience can only be reinforced as he has more and more contact with them. I know that my admiration for the armed forces is shared by him and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I welcome this debate, because hon. Members on both sides of the House had doubts about the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence with respect to ministerial responsibilities, Some of us were worried that an individual Minister would not be responsible for a particular part of the armed forces and that we would not have an opportunity to debate the affairs of each service. In some ways, our worries were dispelled by the assurances that we received that the single service debates would continue. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), like me, thought the matter important. Such debates at least allow us to go into greater detail on the affairs of the individual services, thus minimising the necessity for parliamentary moles, with people fighting a service's cause outside Parliament, or in an irregular manner. Thus, I welcome the debate.
I am in some difficulty, because I have just returned from a services visit to Cyprus which was superbly and efficiently conducted by all the armed forces, including the Royal Marines who are out there. That is another role that they play as part of our general peace-keeping mission there. But the efficiency ended the moment that I became civilianised, because all my baggage was lost in the early hours of this morning. The hours that I had hoped to devote to preparing a succinct speech were devoted instead to retrieving my baggage. I had complete faith when earlier I was in the hands of the Royal Air Force, but I am afraid that civilians failed me at London airport.
Some of us treasure the fact that we civilians can be brought into close contact with the Royal Navy through politics. I toyed with the idea of going into the Royal Navy, but my mathematics was so appalling that I did not attempt to go to Dartmouth to train even in some minor operational capacity for a warship. It is vital to have an understanding of mathematics for that. Thus I was very pleased—just as the hon. Member for Attercliffe was when it happened to him—to end up as a Minister with responsibility for the Royal Navy. Mathematics is important if one is a navigation or gunnery officer on a frigate, but it is less important at ministerial level, because there are excellent advisers who keep the mathematics relatively straightforward.
The fact that I have been brought into close contact with the Royal Navy has given me great satisfaction. I know that the hon. Member for Attercliffe, like me, regards his time as Minister as his finest time in politics. We should pay tribute to the Royal Navy. Without being jingoistic about it, I think that all hon. Members will agree that we have the best sailors in the world, the best training and much of the best equipment. That is not just jingoism, because in 1982 the efficiency and expertise of the Royal Navy, along with the efficiency of the other armed forces, proved it in the Falklands war. It was my privilege to lead


the first British parliamentary delegation to that part of the world after hostilities had ended. Going down there, one pounds hour after hour in a Hercules across the south Atlantic. One then realises the vast distances involved and the magnitude of our effort achievement.
Of course the war was a tri-service effort but it was largely a Royal Navy effort, and its magnitude was outstanding. It has had a tremendous effect on the credibility of the western alliance. If a tough man in the Politburo had wondered whether the democracies of the Alliance would ever take action, he would have seen the United Kingdom using its maritime strength to ensure that a Fascist junta did not get away with a blatant invasion of the Falkland islands, and ensuring that the people there could continue to live in freedom.
I turn to the future of the Falkland Islands and the Navy. The Navy plays a significant role in maintaining their independence. It is sometimes suggested that the difficulties and expense of retaining the islands are more than we can bear. I do not agree. No more is needed than a battalion of strength armed with Rapier, a reinforcement capability with jets able to land on the extended runway, and the additional airport. Regarding the Navy, we need a nuclear hunter-killer submarine on patrol nearly all the time. We are to have about 17 such submarines, and one on patrol there most of the time would be a significant and singular deterrent to any foolish successor to Galtieri who contemplated a similar invasion.
The Royal Navy will have an extensive role to play in defending those islands. That leads me to the question of Trident and the replacement of our nuclear capability. Hon. Members may wonder how the Falklands conflict leads to a consideration of our nuclear deterrent. I shall explain. We must consider the scenario in the south Atlantic if it had been a little different. The Argentinian junta could have acquired a nuclear weapon. It probably would not have been highly sophisticated, but a nuclear weapon would not have been beyond the capability of a second-rank power such as Argentina. Under those circumstances had we not had our own nuclear weaponry, we would easily have been subject to nuclear blackmail. The junta could have told us that, if the task force did not turn back, a nuclear bomb would be targeted on it. That is not an unreal scenario.
The fact that we have, as a last resort, our nuclear capability, should enable us to sleep more easily in our beds at night. The arguments for retaining it are precisely the same as those which led the Labour Government to update the Polaris missile by continuing the Chevaline programme. The Minister will deal with the costing of it when he replies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with the matter in some detail at the Conservative party conference and at many other venues.
The important point to remember about the cost of Trident is that it will be spread over many years. In October the cost was estimated at £9 billion, and now it is just more than that. That cost would be spread over about 20 years. As a proportion of the defence programme it is significant, but it is not of such a transcendent character as to be unaffordable. We must consider the effect on our allies, especially the Americans, if we gave it up.
A serious result could be the decoupling—to use jargon—of the United States of America from our own

defences. It may react with a resurgence of isolationism. Not surprisingly, such a force is always present in America and ready to point it out if Europeans do not do enough in their own defence. If one lives in the mid-west, New York is far away and Europe is an enormous distance away. If we Europeans were seen not to be properly deploying our defences or maintaining our capability, such a resurgence might occur in the United States. That would bring the position of the United Kingdom and the Alliance into jeopardy.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about ordering new ships. Further decisions must be made. It is important that we maintain our amphibious capability in the Royal Marines and Royal Navy. In the long term it is important to maintain our maritime role and ensure that our contribution to NATO is, in particular, a maritime one. It is also important that we maintain our capability to act outside NATO geographical guidelines. In that context, I believe that our German allies should be prepared to bear a greater burden of the defence of Europe, to enable us to contribute even more to, for example, the rapid deployment force.
The Government have proved that they are devoted to the Royal Navy and I know that many Opposition Members are similarly devoted to it. I fear what would happen if Opposition Members were returned with a commitment to lowering our defence capability to the lowest common denominator in NATO. For them to say that they will cut Trident and our independent nuclear capacity, does not let them off the hook. First, the costs do not fit; secondly, if they pursued that non-nuclear course, it would be a severe threat to NATO, possibly even causing its breakdown and certainly risking a decoupling of our connections with the United States. I hope that we shall maintain our Royal Navy capability. If my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not ensure that we maintain it, many Conservative Members will cause them severe difficulties.

Mr. Dick Douglas: We have had interesting speeches from the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and others who have shared responsibility in government for naval affairs. I include in them the quite extraordinarily able speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), virtually every word of which I agree with. That is not surprising, because I am also associated with the parliamentary maritime group. Our proceedings have been dominated by the discussion of Trident, to which I shall refer shortly.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) mentioned the Falkland Islands. The Minister has not told the House the nature of our present commitment to those islands. I understand—the Minister may not wish to speak about this for strategic reasons or on grounds of secrecy—that we have committed there between four and five frigates with backup support services, which are extremely costly. Although, theoretically, those figures can be devoted to NATO, the 8,000-mile journey is a long and difficult one. The commitment strains our resources considerably.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said something about Labour defence policy. I was a member of the defence study group that drew up the policy, and one of its cornerstones is a firm commitment


to NATO. There should be no question about that. We can discuss how far and how fast we should proceed to a non-nuclear role, and we can discuss American bases in Britain, but it is clear from the defence document that the Labour party is firmly committed to NATO. It also states clearly— this is a reversal of previous Labour party policy—that we recognise that former commitments to reduce defence expenditure will not be valid if we switch from nuclear to non-nuclear defences. It is obvious that that will be an extremely costly commitment.
There has been some discussion this evening about Trident, and the Minister owes us an answer on that. I have pursued the matter with the Secretary of State several times, and in effect he has replied that we must update the costs every year. With the value of sterling at present only ․1·20, the increase in cost will be considerable. We can debate the percentage of the capital spending programme for all services that would be taken up by Trident, but it is obvious that much money will be devoted to that weapon. This may or may not be the time to discuss our commitment to NATO and NATO strategy, but it is ridiculous for Government supporters to give the impression that Britain will use this so-called independent deterrent on its own. I cannot imagine a time when the United Kingdom would use Trident, presumably as a second-strike weapon, on its own.
The real guarantee of NATO and the real coupling with the United States is not necessarily Trident but the presence of more than 350,000 American ground forces in Europe. That is the essential ingredient of the coupling.
Some time ago the Select Committee on Defence visited Holy Loch. I stood on a tender and looked at the support ship for the American Poseidon submarines, and at that time—my friends in Scotland will not necessarily thank me for it— there were four Poseidon-type submarines. They were the equivalent of our entire sea borne strategic nuclear deterrent, and I understand that they are targeted through SACEUR. If Britain tries to play in that league perpetually, we must consider the repercussions of cost not only on the Navy budget but on the entire defence budget.
The right hon. Member for Devonport was right to say that some service men, a growing number of the public and some Conservative Back-Bench Members are questioning our expenditure on one weapon system. It will have the effect of crowding out other, especially naval, equipment. There is no question in my mind about that, because if we cancel the 1985–86 commitment to 3 per cent. growth, the implications will be great. The Select Committee on Defence will examine the matter, and I do not wish to anticipate the results of its searching examination, but it would appear that there will be considerable implications in terms of surface vessels and other naval equipment. Questions are beginning to be asked not only in the Labour, Liberal and Social Democratic parties, but in the Conservative party.
There was an announcement about Rosyth, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will wish to expand on that. It was a typical Government trick. If they have little to say in a debate, they throw in some extremely futuristic suggestions. They said that Rosyth will refit some vessels in the 1990s, but the vessels have not yet been ordered. When can we expect those vessels to appear at Rosyth dockyard? I caution my constituents to remember that if pressure mounts on

expenditure, the programme will be cancelled or severely modified. Doubts have already been voiced. Even if the programme is introduced, it will "safeguard" only about 2,500 jobs at Rosyth. The 5,000 jobs that are related to the conventional Navy will be in severe jeopardy in the 1990s, because Britain will have no conventional Navy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East and I have collaborated on this debate, and he will take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport about the Levine proposals. It is extremely unfair for the Government to dangle those proposals month after month before a dedicated work force and not to come to a conclusion. If they were wise—I hope that they will be—they would throw out the proposals; I fear that they will not throw them out completely, but will introduce modified proposals. It would be stupid to lease part of Rosyth dockyard to a private concern to carry out nuclear fitting. That would cause great uncertainty, and its unfairness would not be tolerated by the labour force.
The Government are competition-mad. I note from the White Paper on Defence that
Competition will also be rigorously pursued in the areas of support, supply and maintenance services. Warship refitting provides an example of this developing policy.
The right hon. Member for Devonport was annoyed when I questioned his statement that the Labour party had approved the fitting of a submarine and a frigate going out to private tender. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber now to hear me explain why I do not accept that. There is no guarantee that the Government would compare like with like. The Minister who will reply to the debate has some interest in shipbuilding, and I challenge him to tell the House tonight whether the capability of Humber dockyards to refit the Otter is on all fours with that of a yard run by British Shipbuilders.
I am quite willing to repeat what I am about to say outside the House because I would not want to malign the Humber dock, which I have visited, and I would not wish to say something in the House that I could not repeat outside. The Government got a dumped price for that vessel. Anything between £5 million and £10 million was on the table. Perhaps the Minister will give us some idea about the figures, between the price at which the Humber dock booked in the vessel and what Trafalgar House or Cammell Laird offered. The final result was a dumped price. There is no way that that yard can perform like a dockyard and give the standard of finish.
Another thing that was not considered, but which is vital, is the capability of keeping within a yard such as Trafalgar House—which is now at the Scott section of the Scott Lithgow yard— a design team capable of coping with the successor for the type 2400. That was not considered. All that was considered was the price; this is why I dispute what the right hon. Member for Devonport was saying. The result of the tender was the contract going to the lowest price, which was taken without looking at the capabilities of the yard or of the consequences of keeping design teams in the national interest.
A particular subject has arisen in the Scottish press and is mentioned in the Select Committee report on the Defence White Paper. In paragraph 55 we say:
In supplementary evidence the Minister modified this statement. We now understand that HMS Challenger, the seabed operational vessel, two SSNs … and an MCMV will be Late joining the Fleet.
In the Scottish press there has been some speculation about the Challenger. I am not one to malign our yards.


Any deficiency in the Challenger is specifically related to the saturated diving system, which was designed by the Navy, although not supplied by it. However, the Navy bears the responsibility for the design, not the yard. That is important, because the yard has had a lot of criticism. On this occasion, when the contract was modified or renegotiated, the yard received a modest bonus payment for delivering slightly ahead of time. I hope that the Minister will reply to these remarks, and clarify the issue, and I hope that other hon. Members will pursue the matter. I declare my interest in diving and divers. We must clarify the points about the saturated diving system, such as whose fault it was, what the cost of modification will be, and how it will be modified to make it safe.
Referring to the contemporary Challenger leads me to the Challenger of 1870, which was responsible for the first time for acknowledging that we had mineral nodules on the sea bed. This leads me to the law of the sea, referred to by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). Nobody will be surprised that I wish to refer to this. It is ridiculous that the Government are trailing behind the Americans. The only person I can find who is giving the advice not to sign the law of the sea convention is Mr. Ian MacGregor.
The Government have to supply cogent reasons for their refusal to sign. So far, we have concentrated on mineral provisions, but there are other provisions in the convention that are of vital importance to us as a maritime nation. For example, there are provisions on passage through straits, safety of passage, and so on. We should have some statement, if not tonight, before 9 December, as to the Government's attitude and intentions.
As a former Merchant Navy officer, I agree with virtually all that has been said about the importance of the merchant fleet, and I note that we shall have another study. However, as the right hon. Member for Taunton said, do we need another study, when the General Council of British Shipping has given its views? Again, this was referred to in the Select Committee's report on the Defence White Paper in paragraph 52, where it said:
For example, numbers in the UK owned and registered fleet (vessels of 500 gross registered tons and over) fell from 1,194 in 1979 to 769 in 1983, and the General Council of British Shipping has forecast a further reduction of 400 ships by the end of 1986.
Do the Government reject that view? Are they at odds with it? What will the further analysis do? If the Government reject the view of the General Council of British Shipping, on what grounds do they do so? Here is an organisation that is responsible for assessing the position. It is saying what is likely to happen. The Government have some responsibility to give us their view on that proposal. We are not talking just about ships. As a maritime nation, we are talking about manpower and seafarers. If we do not have ships, we do not have proper training for our seafarers, and that can be extremely costly in wartime.
The Trident is a virility symbol which is very costly to the country. I am not a unilateralist. I concede that here I part company with some of my colleagues, if not the majority of them. However, I am firmly opposed to us possessing a Trident system. It will mean that, at the end of the day, we are endangering our capability of fulfilling a unique and specific role for NATO within our treaty obligations. It will crowd out our conventional Navy, and

will be extremely damaging to the work in the dockyards. The Government, in their wisdom, should reconsider the Trident decision and abandon it.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) will excuse me if I do not directly follow his points. I shall not be dealing with Trident, which has been dealt with well by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I wish to raise a number of points today, and in deference to the wishes of Mr. Speaker and to the fact that many other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall try to keep my remarks short. Although I shall not have time to develop them fully, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be able to answer some of the points that I make. However, I apologise in advance, because I shall not be here to hear his answers as I have a long-standing engagement. I look forward to reading what he says in the Official Report.
Even though this speech will be something of a pot pourri of points, the common strand running through my remarks will be the wish for more costing less. Therefore, it is right and proper to start with the ships that we build. When I joined the Navy 19 years ago, the Leander class frigate, fully equipped, cost £4 million. Today, a frigate costs 34 times that. I accept that it is better armed, has more sophisticated equipment and a far superior set of capabilities, but 34 times the cost means that we must be getting someting wrong. Four times the Leander's initial cost is the annual amount that it costs to keep one of the type 22s at sea. This mass escalation in price, well beyond the figure for defence expenditure inflation, has meant that we do not have enough ships.
We need to examine the ships we build and the methods we use. I am convinced that we are not getting it right. I suggest that after the right hull shape is agreed, bearing in mind its sea-keeping qualities and the job that it is meant to do, we start modulising our building so that most of the internal structure can be built away from the dockyard. The weapons systems developed for various ships could also be made on a modulised basis so that, when a ship was re-armed or fitted, a new weapons system could be slotted into it. The defence specification for that weapons system should deal not just with what it has to do but with the size, the shape, the centre of gravity and so on of the weapons module.
I also believe that our ships are too sophisticated. Because we do not get a long enough run of ships, the individual parts are too expensive. I consider the cost of £40 million for the communications room of Invincible to be money unnecessarily spent. We need good communications, but £40 million for one ship's communications, even if it is a battle leader, is far too high.
I also believe that we need to look at the propulsion system of our ships. It is not necessary these days to have such fast ships. Therefore, it should be possible to have single-screw ships, with single engines, especially if the vessels are fitted with bow thrusters which will give low and medium-speed manoeuvrability.
Frigates should be able to operate not just their own helicopters which are kept on board but also, though not housed on board, VTOL aircraft. These could be kept on board RFAs and be able to operate and be refuelled from frigates. In that way, a squadron of frigates would be able to be detached and take its own air cover with it.
Having been around a variety of modern ships over the past year, I have been surprised at the standards of habitability. because they are unnecessarily high. I do not suggest that we return to the hammock. I am not suggesting that we go back to the broadside mess, where a seaman slept, as I did when I first went to sea, on the deck. with the next layer being on a bench, the third layer being on a table and the fourth layer being in a hammock. However, for the same size ship, the Russians have 50 per cent. more weapons systems. The main reason is that the standards of habitability on our ships are far too superior. I do not want what the Russians do, but I want a far more sensible standard of habitability, recognising that men do not spend so long at sea for continuous periods and do not spend so long away from home.
This reduction in accommodation is also possible if we do what we should have done a long time ago, which is to cut down the numbers of crew per ship. I suggest that a frigate should not have more than 80 men and a destroyer more than 120. We also have to accept the concept of expendability of our ships. The idea that we should so arm a ship that 60 per cent. of its weapons system is defensive and only 40 per cent. has an aggressive ability is the wrong way round. We have to accept the expendability of ships even though the idea runs contrary to much of Navy thinking and it means that we have to automate far more.
Large manning levels used to be considered necessary as it was possible to replace a man but impossible to replace a piece of equipment at sea if it was damaged. As a result, we used to have lots of men aboard ship and not too many pieces of sophisticated equipment. With modern weapons, if a ship is hit once with the right weapon, as we saw with HMS Sheffield, it is out of action. We have to automate, but we have to accept expendability and produce cheaper ships with smaller crews. If we do that, we have a good chance of building ships which are more exportable.
We shall never have enough ships, of course, because we do not have enough money. That is why we must continue to rely on the merchant fleet. That policy has at last become possible because our 30-day war stock replacement policy is being implemented, and not before time, but I suggest that we must not consider ships which have been flagged out but which are under British beneficial ownership as being part of the British fleet. It will not work. It will not happen. Even if there is a minority interest overseas and that interest can obtain a lien on a ship at the time, it will not be available to us. Nor must we consider that the red duster Hong Kong fleet will necessarily be available to us in times of conflict.
I realise that the Royal Navy has at last accepted that the merchant marine can not only provide a support role but can defend itself in time of conflict. It has accepted the Arapaho system, but again it has gold-plated it. It has made it far too expensive. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should look at the British Aerospace SCADS, which is a ship conversion system, to produce seven ships with different capabilities—helicopter carriers, Harrier carriers, helicopter support ships, amphibious support ships, logistic ships and so on—all with their own point defence systems based on a Seawolf vertically-launched missile system and providing a full set of equipment. For the cost of £168 million it is possible to provide seven ships for the same cost as one type 22's capital cost and running cost for two years.
We shall need to use armed merchantmen capable of protecting themselves in convoys, and we need to look now—not in a few years—at how we arm merchantmen effectively. We shall not have the frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers to do the job.
While referring to ship types, I should like to add a quick word about assault ships. I believe that they were far too small in capacity and that they cost too much. I think that they will fall to bits fairly soon, and I wonder with what we intend to replace them. We may want them, but can we afford purpose-built assault ships? If we cannot, we have to look at what roll-on/roll-off ships are available. We have to do better than the the mexefloats which are now proposed for use with Ro/Ro vessels. We must give the Royal Marines the capability of getting ashore fast and doing the job which they are superbly trained to do.
If we are to keep down costs, we must analyse the procurement system. I understand that it takes about 14 years from the inception of an idea to having a piece of equipment fitted. I am sure that MINIS will have some effect, but, because the procurement system works in autonomous committees staffed by experts who have a belt, braces and string round the waist mentality, they over-gild every piece of equipment and every single system for which they ask. There is no one senior enough on each committee to say, "Stop. We have to cut the cost of this piece of equipment."
I echo the comments about mine warfare. As far as I know, we do not have any really sophisticated ground mine systems, and it is about time we did. We know that the Russians have them. Our coasts are vulnerable not only to mines but to ships and submarines operating on the continental shelf and between various temperature layers in the sea. We will need to lay down effective minefields during times of conflict and we do not have the modern mines necessary.
What are we doing about airborne early warning radar? Following the Falklands, it was realised that that was absolutely necessary. A Heath Robinson airborne dustbin was put on the Sea King, which worked quite well. What proper, designated system will we eventually have for airborne early warning?
What will happen about torpedo manufacture? The Conqueror fired three torpedoes—two of them hit and worked, one hit and did not work. What happened? How effective are the Mark 8s? How is torpedo development progressing?
Why do we need a Sea Harrier as well as the RAF Harrier? I grant that the radar is different, but the Navy has shown that it is possible to operate RAF Harriers. It understands about corrosion, so it is not necessary to work with much more expensive and heavy titanium materials that are non-corrosive. The materials that corrode easily must be continually washed. The Navy dealt with that problem during the Falklands conflict and could do the same with RAF Harriers. It would be a cheaper system, although the Harriers would need a different type of radar.
The most important factor is the man. Is there any intention to make it obligatory that, after leaving the Royal Navy, a man must spend some time in the Royal Naval Reserve? It is important for the reserve to have the recent experience of people who have just left the full-time service.
One reason, apart from the obvious one, why we need more ships, is that that will engender much greater job satisfaction. It is regrettable that a senior officer should,


at the most, obtain only two commands in his lifetime. Many junior officers of lieutenant commander and commander rank will never get a ship to command, even though they are perfectly capable of doing so. If there were more ships, greater expertise would be built up. Because men do not spend so long at sea and are not so long away from this country, perhaps we do not need all the expensive housing and welfare capabilities of the Royal Navy. There is some scope for saving in that area.
I want briefly to follow the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) about the law of the sea. My understanding is that the Government do not intend to sign the convention, on the basis that they do not sign that which they do not intend to ratify. There have been at least three occasions since 1970 when Britain has signed conventions but not ratified them. I refer to the Geneva convention on the laws of war, the International Maritime Organisation convention on the carriage of nuclear material at sea and another IMO convention whose title I cannot remember.
We should definitely sign the convention by 10 December, because not doing so will increase maritime anarchy. However, we should reserve our position on part II. I recognise that, potentially, part II could be damaging to Britain. We should do what we did with the MARPOL convention of the IMO. We signed it, but did not ratify until there was an acceptance that we would not have to adhere to certain annexes.
When I was in the Navy we used to write what were known as Nelson essays. My first said why Lord Collingwood was a rather better and attainable example than Lord Nelson. My second suggested that we must get away from the idea that ships should be preserved regardless of cost and that we should move towards the idea of expendable ships, which meant low manning levels and cheap ships in large numbers. I admit that those views did not meet with universal acclaim. The old but not so bold told me that my ideas would never happen. I believe that they must.
We must move towards a cheaper Navy, with more ships and a far greater capability. The Royal Navy is known as "The Service", and its officers and men wish to give that service to their nation. It is our job to serve them well by providing them with the equipment and ships to enable them to serve us.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I shall do my best to follow the wide-ranging contribution of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). I heard him ask for less space for the crew in modern naval vessels. I heard him suggest that their conditions of service should be altered so that there would be compulsory service as reservists after they left the service. When he said that he was going to speak about the man, I thought that he might call for a maximum height for the crew so that they would fit more economically into the spaces available in the ships.
I do not think that such issues should dominate a debate about the Royal Navy. The crucial issue is that of Trident versus the money that will be spent on the remainder of the service. I strongly support the Labour party's defence policy, which includes membership of NATO. Labour party members constantly have to reiterate that, because

the Conservative party tries to take that away from us in public forums. We wish to retain membership of NATO. Our policy includes the development of a non-nuclear defence policy for Britain. It is important to reduce the risks of a nuclear war in Europe, not least because our nation is peculiarly vulnerable to such an attack.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Sir A. Buck) raised the important question of nuclear blackmail. It is an important argument, but it is not the preserve of our nation alone. It is the duty of the Government of this country and the Governments of every civilised nation to discourage nuclear proliferation. If our nation can say, "We must possess a nuclear arsenal so that other nations with such arsenals cannot threaten us", that same argument is logically, even morally, open to every other nation whose economy can sustain such an arsenal. Indeed, there are a few nations with stronger economies than ours which, by the Government's argument, could claim to be entitled to the same approach.
It is important to develop a defence policy for Britain that relies upon conventional armaments and that pays due regard to our foreign policy and our neighbours' foreign policies and which takes into account our international interests and commitments. There is a crucial role in that for the Royal Navy, but not a Navy with a Trident programme flung like a financial albatross around its neck.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant)— I do not often agree with him— when he questioned whether our nation could afford Trident. It was a courageous question for a Conservative Member, but he found some support among his colleagues. I urge the Government to consider what he said and to think again before going along the road towards a Trident programme. More than 90 per cent. of our nation's trade is carried by sea. We must protect our North sea oilfields and fishing interests— but we will not protect them with a nuclear deterrent.
The Minister tonight envisaged our nation threatening the Soviet Union with Trident. He suggested that Great Britain would threaten the Soviet Union separately from the United States. That is folly. Whatever the outcome of such an exchange, everybody in Great Britain would be killed. Our country would be devastated. To say that any outcome could be a victory goes well beyond anything that I can comprehend. My constituents feel the same, as I am sure do all hon. Members.
The Government should commit themselves to western European disarmament and seek a reduction in Soviet conventional forces. Within a conventional defence strategy, our nation's contribution should emphasise the Navy's role and ensure that we can respond to pressures other than a suicidal European nuclear exchange.
Our maritime role is vital to our country. If we cancelled Trident and left the nuclear role to the United States rather than attempting to duplicate it ourselves, we could meet our conventional commitments.
We should not allow our merchant fleet to decline. Other hon. Members have spoken about the importance of the merchant fleet and I endorse everything that they have said. We must preserve a British-owned merchant fleet, not only for trading but for defence reasons. We should not under-value the role of merchant shipping in defence matters, but the Government are presiding over the death of British merchant shipbuilding.
Admiral Wesley McDonald was mentioned by the Opposition spokesman at the beginning of the debate. Last


August he called for an increase in the United States carrier force. We could contribute to that with the resources freed by abandoning the Trident programme. We would not need to mothball Hermes; or, if she were sold, we could contemplate building another aircraft carrier. At least we could make a bigger contribution to the provision of destroyers and mine sweepers.
I am disappointed that no statement has been made tonight to announce which yard will get the order for the two type 22s. That statement has been delayed many times. That delay fuels the suspicions of people in shipbuilding areas such as mine that the Government intend to clear the labour force out of the yards prior to privatisation, paying no heed to the effect that that will have on the communities and no heed to our nation's defence interests. The overriding issue for the Government is expediency rather than the interests of the nation.
It will be impossible to meet the future needs of the Royal Navy if the Government allows the domestic shipbuilding industry to collapse. That is the direction in which their current policy is heading. In post-1945 conflicts, mines have played an important and significant part. However, does our island nation have the necessary resources to meet our commitments in that regard? I suspect that it does not. The number of vessels available, as well as their quality, is important.
The needs of NATO and of our nation are being neglected by the foolish and false security which the Government think they have from the Trident programme. Our economy cannot sustain both needs, and the Government have chosen the wrong option.

Miss Janet Fookes: In deference to colleagues who want to speak later, I propose to condense my planned speech. I am one of those in the House who support the Trident programme. It is important that we retain a credible nuclear deterrent of our own. I take issue with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). One can make a logical case for dispensing with the nuclear deterrent—although I regard that as most unwise—but to seek to have a nuclear deterrent on the cheap, a third-rate cut-price version, has no merit. One might just as well do without it.
The chilling catalogue of the Soviet Union's conventional forces makes it imperative for us to have a nuclear deterrent. I urge my hon. Friends in the Government to continue their policy. In the past, much has gone wrong and we have wasted much money through chopping and changing our policies. I hope that we shall not do that in the future.
Let us consider the number of ships on order since May 1979. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced the orders with a flourish. He seemed somewhat coy in explaining how many were corning into service. I should like to have that information. I have a nasty feeling that there may be some unpleasant gaps in the way that they are coming into service. One cannot fight a war, or even undertake an exercise, without the real thing. Paper orders are not much use if the ships are not there on the high seas.
At the risk of being considered tedious, I inquire again about fire hazards and the progress made in overcoming them. That was an important feature of the Falklands campaign and made a deep impression upon me. I hope that we do all in our power to make all the ships in service

as fireproof as possible and that every step will be taken to ensure that new ships coming into service are made fireproof. Some progress has been made, but I feel that I must act as a little hornet and ensure that the Government do not go back.
Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House I am worried about our merchant navy capability. I am less than enthusiastic about the in-depth inquiry. I fear that some months later it might announce with a flourish all sorts of interesting facts which tell us only what we know already. We are looking for an explanation of what action the Government propose to take to remedy that important defect. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister tonight.
Plymouth has a major dockyard. It is one of the biggest in western Europe and the biggest in the United Kingdom. I do not object to inquiries to ensure that each dockyard functions as efficiently as possibly, but I share the concern about the length of time that it is taking to come to a decision. That causes a loss of morale and enables rumours, some extraordinarily wild and unrealistic, to abound. Without definite information, it is difficult to stem them. When people feel that their jobs might be at stake they are particularly vulnerable to rumours and, on occasions, to mischief making.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to make a decision and to announce it. I hope that such an announcement will be made by a Minister in one of the dockyards—for preference in Plymouth—so that he can deal with any queries. I hope that the statement will not be made from a crow's nest in the Ministry of Defence.
I have received glowing tributes of late from naval officers whose ships have been refitted in Devonport dockyard. An excellent service was provided there in support of the Falklands campaign. I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement which will allay the fears of the work force and enable the dockyard to continue more efficiently. I go along with that, but we must have a decision soon.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), whose knowledge of naval matters and support for the Navy is well known and respected throughout the House. I hope that she will forgive me if I strongly disagree with her about the Trident missile.
When I asked the Minister whether Trident was a unilateral weapon, he said, "No." I noticed that he was supported by a number of his hon. Friends. Must we go back into the dictionary to decide this matter? Trident is an independent weapon which is capable of being used unilaterally. That makes it a unilateral weapon. What other definition of unilateralism can there be?
It is curious to find that this Government condemn outright in the strongest language even the smallest independent step by Britain towards arms reductions, yet are now contemplating an independent unilateral weapon in favour of an arms increase. I stress arms increase, not just arms maintenance, because the Minister knows as well as I that the current level upon which the credible deterrent is operated is 64 warheads in Polaris. Hide it though he will, he knows perfectly well that the Government intend to increase that massively. The figure bandied about is 512 warheads, but the maximum figure is 896. That is more than a tenfold increase. It is odd that a Government who claim unilateralism to be such a bad thing should be taking


such a unilateral step to increase weapons when they refuse to take the smallest of unilateral steps to decrease the number of weapons held.
More important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, Trident is the cuckoo in the nest of defence expenditure. It will turf out all other sensible expenditures. NATO has a 40 times capacity to destroy our enemy. It may be arguable that a deterrent should be able to destroy an enemy once, twice or three times but, to put it mildly, 40 times is somewhat self-indulgent.
If we were to launch the nuclear weapons that we hold at the rate of one Hiroshima weapon every second, it would take 11·6 days to do so. Against that background, the Government are prepared to increase the number of nuclear weapons which they are prepared to deliver independently and unilaterally. That consequently decreases the amount of money—this vital and limited resource—that we are prepared to spend on NATO at the point where NATO is weakest. As good Alliance partners committed to NATO, we should make our defence contribution to that area where NATO is weakest, not add to weapons of which we have too many already.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that our possession of Trident is part of NATO strategy and that if we were to give it up we would lose credibility in the eyes of our American allies? We could not possibly match the conventional forces of the Soviet Union, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Ashdown: I merely direct the hon. Gentleman to the statement of the British Atlantic Committee, which supports NATO and which says that there is no prospect that the Soviet Union could mount a conventional attack on us which would have any prospect of success. When Lord Carrington took over as Secretary-General of NATO he said that we do not suffer militarily in the balance with the Soviet Union at the moment. He was referring to conventional military balance. The folly of the Trident decision is that at a time when we should be strengthening NATO where it is weakest, we are spending more money on an area in which it already has too many weapons.
There is another folly. As we approach September next year and the non-proliferation treaty review conference, many people believe that that is the last occasion on which that treaty will have any chance of continuing as an effective means of cutting back on proliferation. A serious problem lies ahead if the NPT ceases to become effective. There is no doubt in my mind that the purchase of Trident contravenes our signature of the NPT as it stands at present.
Article 1 states:
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly".
The Minister will no doubt argue that the weapon is supplied by us, and that that is what goes on top of the warhead. That is laughable. It is like saying that the bullet is only the thing that comes out of the end of a gun. This is a direct transfer of nuclear weapons technology and delivery systems.
Article 6 of the treaty states:

Each of the Parties of the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith … to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date".
The Government have signed that commitment to the cessation of the nuclear arms race, but they honour it by increasing almost to a factor of 10 the number of warheads that we shall possess, and they shall do so as early as possible. That puts at risk our capacity and moral right to be able to persuade others to observe and adhere to that vital treaty, which is our only bulwark against the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons.
It does so at a terrible cost. On the Government's argument, we shall obtain a spurious kind of independence. Let us assume that Britain has the political independence to be able to use the Trident missile. I ask hon. Members to think of the massive political pressures placed on the Government by the Americans if we seek to use the Trident missile at a moment when they are not prepared that we should do so—in other words, wholly independently.
Let us assume that those pressures are overcome. We all know that the Trident missile is obtained from the Americans. Fair enough; we purchase enough for our needs. But, because of the D5 decision they will now be maintained by the Americans. Fair enough; so while one third are maintained we shall still possess two thirds. So we stick the ones that we are left with on to boats and push them out to sea. When will they be fired? Presumably that will be done when incoming Russian missiles are spotted, but the only way in which we shall see those Russian missiles is via the ballistic missile early warning system which is in the hands of the Americans.
Alternatively, we can sit tight and wait for Birmingham to go bang before launching our Trident missiles. Then we come to the last problem in the the chain. For the Trident submarine to fix its position accurately to fire the missile it will need to use the Navstar satellite. Indeed, the missile will need to use that satellite for mid-term correction. But that satellite is in American hands and, we understand, can be turned off or used only by those whom the Americans wish to use it.

Mr. O'Neill: For the benefit of the House, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify a doubt in my mind. Is he in favour of Polaris and Chevaline, against Trident and in favour of submarine-launched cruise missiles?

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that from the time Polaris was considered the Liberal party has been opposed to the independent nuclear deterrent. So it remains. In my opinion, we do not need an independent nuclear deterrent for Britain, and that is the opinion of my party. It always has been.
The price we have paid for all this is a spurious non-existent independence. The Trident decision undermines NATO in the sense that it undermines NATO's political will and its capacity to have the conventional forces which it needs. If the Minister believes that Britain can defend herself independently, he is entitled to believe in the folly of an independent deterrent. Anything less means the removal of a resource that is vital to NATO. In addition, it undermines the non-proliferation treaty and our support of that treaty. Furthermore, it is a unilateral act and, after all that, it is not even independent. The question of cost was eloquently dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. It may be £10 billion or £12 billion. No one knows precisely.
When I say that the threshold will be lowered, I mean that there will be a reduction in the conventional forces that we need. The Minister made glowing comments about the Royal Marines and the need for a decision on the replacement of Intrepid and Fearless. But for the Falklands crisis, those ships would have gone to the knacker's yard. We are now told that they are to be spun on until the mid-1990s. I am very worried about their effectiveness at that stage. I hope that the Minister will take a decision very soon.
Without Fearless and Intrepid, we shall not have the capacity to do what I, as a Marine officer, had to do. We shall not be able to carry out the vital job of deterrence in northern Norway. The Minister said that we were determined to be able to do that. But the contingency plan to carry Royal Marine commandos to northern Norway in the absence of Fearless and Intrepid is to take them there in a Sealink ferry. That may satisfy the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), but anyone who believes that one can land in hostile territory and hostile conditions on the northern coast of Norway in a Sealink ferry is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Unless Fearless and Intrepid are replaced, we shall be unable to carry out that task effectively. The Minister's decision is therefore vital. We are worried that expenditure on Trident will interfere with our ability to perform that vital NATO task.
I am particularly concerned about escort vessels because that is the centre of the problem. For all the Minister's good words, the supreme commanders of the Atlantic fleet and C-in-C fleet have recently said that our commitment to the north Atlantic fleet in escort vessels is now 40 per cent. lower than is required. It is a disgrace that the Government of a maritime nation cannot fulfil even its current maritime commitments to NATO, and that is just the present position. What will happen in the near future?
The type 23 vessels now coming on are the key. The first was due to be produced in 1984 with the frigates coming on series in the 1990s. We now understand that the first—the Norfolk—will come off in 1989 and the rest following the sea trials of the first of class. Those trials may well take six or 12 months, so it is likely that we shall not be into series production of type 23 frigates until the mid-1990s. Will the Minister confirm that estimate when he winds up the debate?
I ask the Minister now to follow me in a little mathematics. When asked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) how many ships were launched last year, the Minister with responsibility for the Navy made the astonishing admission that he did not know. He may not know this, either. According to my calculations, assuming an in-service life of 25 years—I should be interested to know the length of life on which the Ministry is now working—we shall have only 52 escort vessels. Of those—one Bristol, two County class, 12 Sheffields, 13 Broadsides, 6 Amazons and 18 Leanders—only 30 are likely to be immediately available in the front line, the rest being in for maintenance, repair and refit. Taking the much more likely case of a 20-year in-service life, the figure reduces to a total of 38 with an operational fleet of 20. Is that what the Minister wants? Is that how he proposes to honour his NATO commitments? And even that would mean keeping our 13 Leanders until their last gasp.
Our Navy is already weaker in relative terms than that which faced Hitler in Operation Sealion in the early 1940s,

and the cost of Trident wilt merely make things worse. For any conceivable scenario, the Trident missile decision will make us not stronger but weaker both in fulfilling our vital responsibilities to our NATO allies and in our ability to conduct our own defence. The cost of a type 23 was originally announced as £67 million. It is now believed to be £110 million. There is a desperate need for the Minister to take urgent steps to increase the escort fleet as quickly as possible. If the decision on and production of the type 23 cannot be speeded up I hope that he will very quickly go for the Mk 3 offshore patrol vessel equipped with a helicopter. That vessel could be built in a year at a cost of about £35 million. I hope that he will take that decision very early indeed.
Finally, I wish to develop some technical points on torpedoes relating to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, East. I believe that a major scandal is now occuring in our procurement of the new series of torpedoes. Our current heavyweight torpedo is the type 24, the so-called Tigerfish. This followed a naval staff requirement laid down in 1959. It was supposed to be in operation in 1965 but actually came into operation in 1972. As has been pointed out, that torpedo showed significant inadequacies and failures in the Falklands campaign, during which several were fired. As a direct result, a modernisation programme is now under way.
The update programme was initially announced at £12 million but I am told that it will run out at £70 million. Even then, its design is nearly 30 years old, its maximum speed is 35 knots and its maximum range about 15 km. It is already completely unable to cope with the modern class of Russian submarines in terms of its ability to catch them or to dive deep enough. The updating will require not just a new propulsion unit but better propulsion mechanisms, a replacement sonar, replacement electronics and the solution of certain auxiliary supply problems. It is liable to be at best inadequate.
The long-term replacement for the Tigerfish is the Spearfish. The cost of 100 pre-production models is £500 million and the defence Estimates recently published made provision for a further £775 million for the development of the new Spearfish. That is a total of £1,250 million for the development of a torpedo which is not even running adequately. I am told that it uses a very unsafe fuel called HAP/OTTO— for the technically minded, that is hydroxalymine perchlorate and a mixture of the OTTO fuels—and that even now that mixture has never been put together adequately so as to make the torpedo run effectively without a severe risk of detonation. Indeed, I understand that there have been two explosions at Ministry of Defence establishments testing that fuel.
We need a replacement torpedo capable of carrying out the tasks required in a modern naval environment, and we need it now. We cannot expect the new Spearfish programme adequately to achieve that. Having spent more than £1,000 million producing a torpedo that is not even running properly, I suggest that the Minister might do better to fill in the gap by buying some United States Mk 48 torpedoes which I gather would cost about £150 million for a fit of 200.
Regrettably, that is not the end of the torpedo problem. We are also developing a lightweight anti-submarine torpedo to replace the US Mk. 46. I understand that that torpedo has been developed and is coming into service. It was announced that it would cost about £200 million, but the actual cost is about £1 billion. It has already been


admitted that that new lightweight torpedo is incapable of catching the Russian submarines that are currently at sea. I understand that it was admitted last year to the Select Committee. A total of more than £2 billion will therefore have been spent on producing torpedoes which appear not to work or to be incapable of catching the current class of Russian submarines they are supposed to catch. I hope that the Minister will address those points.
The development of an effective conventional Navy, capable of honouring our commitments to NATO, is placed severely at risk and in jeopardy, because the Government wish to have an independent, unilateral weapon when that independence is spurious and does not exist. That expenditure will so corrupt the Naval budget that we shall have a Navy which is in all senses not stronger but weaker. That is the reason why the Government should cancel the Trident decision.
I predict that the time will arrive—it is not far away—when the Minister will have to face up to reality and, no doubt, announce the cancellation of the Trident missile programme. The alliance looks forward to that day with some pleasure.

Mr. Robert Hicks: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a strong technical contribution. His speech confirmed the reason why some of us are always reticent about contributing to defence debates.
I shall consider the Royal Navy's future role with specific reference to its manpower requirements, before concentrating on the Government's proposals for the future management structure of Her Majesty's dockyards. It is a fundamental responsibility of any Government to safeguard their citizens from any potential internal or external aggressor. That implies the possession of a meaningful and effective defence capability.
There is no alterntive but to have nuclear and conventional weaponry at our disposal. It worries me when I read and hear, as we have done this evening, that, because of financial constraints, one of these two essential ingredients may have to suffer at the expense of retaining and developing the other. Those aspects are complementary, and until we can obtain meaningful disarmament both are necessary.
As one who is known to take a relaxed view about public expenditure, the public sector borrowing requirement and the rest of the somewhat questionable economics of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope that the Defence Ministers will not be pushed, for reasons of economic dogma, into a corner in which they are obliged to take decisions which prejudice our defence capability.
The last occasion on which I spoke in a defence debate was in 1981 when the House was discussing John Nott's defence review. Had the proposals then outlined been enacted, the Royal Navy would have been the principal casualty. We all know what that would have meant, given the subsequent events in the south Atlantic. This is an appropriate moment to mention HMS Raleigh, the shore establishment in my constituency which takes all the non-officer intake into the Royal Navy. As a result of the defence review, training is undertaken at that establishment, involving an annual throughput of 24,000 naval

personnel a year. That training is at all levels and a great variety of skills is imparted. It is a highly successful, streamlined process, and I am sure that the House would wish to pay tribute to those personnel—both service and civilian— who are employed there and provide that excellent facility for the training requirements of Royal Navy personnel.
Many previous Governments have looked at Her Majesty's dockyards and have sought to make them more efficient and accountable to financial controls. That is a right and proper approach, but the problem is that refitting ships will never be as controllable as constructing them. There is the inherent difficulty of the customer-supply relationship, as was pointed out in the most recent inquiry by Mr. Levine. It is difficult to fault the Levine analysis, but I have little enthusiasm for his prescribed remedies. His agency proposal— whereby the assets of the dockyard would be retained by the Ministry of Defence but the actual work, including the labour force, would be the responsibility of a private contractor on a five or perhaps seven-year leasehold basis—is a recipe for confusion at best and inefficiency at worst.
Given the weaknesses of the existing system, it would seem to be sensible to return to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) who made a similar investigation when he was Under-Secretary of State for Defence. He proposed the establishment of a dockyard trading fund. The Speed report specifically rejected the agency concept advocated by Levine. That happened just four years ago. As the House knows, the Speed report suggested a trading fund for Her Majesty's dockyards, with a separate dockyard Vote, thus taking it out of the overall defence budget. That would have had the effect of improving the existing unsatisfactory customer-supply relationship by placing it on a more businesslike basis, and, at the same time, allowing greater freedom of management within the overall financial budget. Ultimately, the dockyards would be accountable to the House for their funding in a more precise manner than at present.
The Levine proposals prompted an adverse response, in varying degrees of hostility, from the work force at Her Majesty's dockyards in Devonport. I gather from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that, when he made his report known, he was able to obtain support for his proposals from management and from trade unions representing the work force.
I make one urgent request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence— please, end this uncertainty. There are 13,300 employees at Devonport, 800 of whom have only just moved into our area following the closure of Chatham and the reduction at Portsmouth. In addition, by March 1985, there is a target of 13,065 employees, so a reduction at Devonport of almost 240 has been requested. That adds to the anxiety and uncertainty. The Government have made Devonport the premier United Kingdom dockyard. The loyalty and competence of the work force, management, industrial civil servants and non-industrial civil servants are not in doubt, as their response at the time of the Falklands conflict clearly demonstrated.
Those essential attributes for the servicing of our Royal Navy are currently being sorely tested by the present indecision and the resulting uncertainty. We are talking


about people, their livelihoods and their pattern of family life. I believe that we owe it to them to relieve those anxieties as quickly as possible.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Although this debate has ranged widely, the major contributions have concentrated widely on the escalating costs of Trident, which, set against the falling pound, put at risk our conventional defences.
I wish to concentrate upon the future of the royal dockyards. The subject was mentioned by the hon. Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). The Minister announced this afternoon that the refit of the Trident submarine will take place at Rosyth dockyard. The work force at Rosyth will undoubtedly welcome one part of that—the belated recognition of their skill and dedication, evidently forgotten by the Government since the appreciation of their work in July 1982 after the Falklands campaign. That has been forgotten for the narrowest of ideological reasons as Ministers, in pursuit of privatisation policies, have sought to belittle the public sector and loyal civil servants.
The work force at Rosyth, like the Opposition, will find little to reassure them about their jobs and immediate prospects. The announcement means that once Trident is built, if ever it is, and once it is commissioned, if ever it is, it will be refitted at Rosyth dockyard perhaps in the last years of this century or the first years of the next.
Even if I were an enthusiast for the Trident programme, which I am not, I shall find it difficult to return to my constituency this weekend and tell those in work and out of work to forget about the millions of pounds that they have lost in regional development grants as a result of an announcement yesterday, to ignore the fact that 4,500 people are now unemployed, with unemployment rising faster than almost anywhere in Europe, and to ignore the fact that Rosyth faces the threat of compulsory redundancies. I am supposed to say that in 15 years' time work may be available from the Trident programme if the dream of the Secretary of State for Defence becomes a reality.
The sudden and abrupt loss of development status, the threat of compulsory redundancies and the disruption that privatisation is causing, and will continue to cause, is of more immediate interest and of more direct relevance to my constituents and to the employees now and for the foreseeable future than any benefits which might accrue from a refit programme which, if it ever happened, could begin at the earliest in the late 1990s.
As even the Minister will concede, many uncertainties surround the Trident programme: not just the cost or the falling pound, but the increasing hostility being shown to the programme by the Labour party and the doubts being raised on the Conservative Benches and by the Minister's allies.
When I was in America during the summer, I found that the NATO chiefs whom I met believe that the Trident programme seriously weakens this country's conventional defences. I met Brigadier-General Anthony Smith, who is the principal director at the pentagon for European and NATO policy. He referred me to a report which had been prepared showing the gap that will arise in our conventional defences at sea and on land if the Trident programme continues.
The report is entitled, "Improving NATO's Conventional Capabilities". In a letter to me Brigadier Smith says that although there is no unclassified version of the report in America, he has sent it to the Secretary of State for Defence. He suggests that I approach the Secretary of State who, he believes, will be pleased to show me a copy of the report. I shall, of course, approach the Secretary of State, but it is interesting to note that the report confirms everything that the Labour party has been saying about the economic absurdity and military folly of the Trident missile.
Many people believe that the Minister has come to anounce what will happen after the arrival of Trident in order to convince himself that Trident will arrive. His statement today about refitting at Rosyth rings hollow. If he were announcing real jobs from a real project of real importance to the real defence of this country, I for one would welcome the announcement. Unfortunately, Trident represents none of those things.
My constituents will find it strange that the Minister can be so certain about the fate of the dockyards in the late 1990s when he has made a virtue of uncertainty about their fate in the late 1980s. They will find it strange that he can tell us what might happen in the last half of the next decade, but cannot tell us what will happen in the last half of this decade.
The Minister has confirmed that he is considering proposals to privatise the dockyards, but today he tells us that the most powerful, lethal and destructive weapon ever built is to be refitted at Rosyth. Apparently he cannot tell us who will be running the dockyard in the 1990s and servicing the weapons.
Among the measures which the Minister is still considering is a proposal which would privatise the management of the dockyard, perhaps placing it in the hands of a foreign or multinational operator on a four-year franchise— something which is more familiar to the world of fast food.
Is the Minister saying that he proposes to buy the most expensive weapons system known to this country arid run it on a franchise? Today, Rosyth faces the threat of redundancies, ever-increasing privatisation and increasing contractorisation within the dockyard. If the Minister could allay the fears of dockyard workers about those things, his announcement about Rosyth might be taken more seriously.
The Minister was saying that Trident, of unknown and unknowable cost, with at best an uncertain future, is to be sent to a dockyard which would be run by an unknown and untried operator, with a work force of unknown size, over which Ministers would have unknown and unspecified control. In those circumstances, the Minister's statement comes more from the world of public relations than from that of defence.
It is now eight months since Mr. Peter Levine's proposals were discussed, and four months since he left the employment of the Secretary of State for Defence. That is four months during which uncertainty over the future of the dockyard has been damaging morale within the dockyard. They have been months during which, without public announcement or the approval of the House, creeping privatisation appears to have become the way of life in the royal dockyards. When the dockyards exist to serve the Navy, when nothing should be done to affect the effectiveness of their relationship with the Navy, and when the onus should be upon the Government to demonstrate


the need for any change or any privatisation, the measures that have been taken in the dockyards have not been tested for security, for viability, for capability or for capacity to respond in an emergency. At no point, either, have we considered the financial implications for this country. The opposite is the case. For the Government, as a matter of dogma, privatisation is the panacea, and, as a matter of policy, cutting public sector manpower is the prescription.
Now that it has been denied its promised increases in manpower, Rosyth's resources are being stretched to the limit. The dockyard is depending to an increasing extent on private contractors and casual labour. The Transport and General Workers Union representatives at Rosyth have told me that in July, as a result of the manpower recruitment ban, casual workers were brought into the dockyards. Five casual workers were used to clean the radiation departments of Resolution and Warspite. The union claims that the workers were given inadequate training and were not fully informed of the risks. Within a few days one worker had been subjected to two thirds of the maximum yearly radiation dosage and all five had been subjected to more than half of it.
That is an example of the dangers that can arise from increasing dependence on casual workers and outside commercial contractors. Under wholesale privatisation, with casualisation of the work force and contractorisation—which may be the fate of the dockyard—the Minister cannot guarantee either safety or security. He certainly cannot guarantee savings.
The test which the Secretary of State applies before putting projects out to privatisation is quite different from the tests applied by other Departments. The Secretary of State says that he will keep projects within the public sector only if the public sector can prove that it is significantly cheaper than the private sector. Even in American dockyards, privatisation of in-house services can be justified only if the private sector is at least 10 per cent. cheaper than the public sector. To the right hon. Gentleman, it is the public sector that must be cheaper. That policy is wrong and unfair.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement visited America this summer before I did. He visited some of the dockyards that I visited later on. He must have seen that the model which Mr. Levine chose for the dockyards, and which he said was based on American experience—the model of agency management— can be found nowhere in the management of the shipyards which deal with naval refits in America. It is taken entirely from armaments manufacture— a model with which Mr. Levine is familiar because of the other hats that he wears. That model has no relevance to the future of the royal dockyards.
The Minister must also have heard the views of the chief of the naval sea systems command, Vice-Admiral Fowler, who has said repeatedly—in America, the land of free enterprise—that in the refitting of naval ships the public sector is far more efficient than the private sector. Vice-Admiral Fowler has recommended that public sector shipyards should be building ships as well as refitting them.
I wonder whether the Minister also knows that the American navy is resisting Government proposals to contract out more and more vessels and submarines for refitting. Does he know that study after study has led the

American shipyards and naval sea systems command to reject the privatisation of naval in-house services—the very thing being proposed for our dockyards?
American and most European experience leads us to reject the Levine proposal for agency management, any further movement towards privatisation of in-house services in the dockyards, and any further contracting-out of refitting work.
The Minister has not reassured us about the future of Rosyth dockyard. He has simply added to the uncertainty, anxiety and sense of frustration at the dockyard. Neither management nor work force wants the disruption of privatisation, the Navy does not want it, and the nation certainly does not need it.

Mr. Robert Banks: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow on his debate about the dockyards.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. What he has said today suggests to me that he and I share an understanding about the importance of sea power. I am convinced that the control of the oceans is fundamental to the deterrent that we in NATO have to maintain. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy. Our commitment to it is always taken into account, and never more so than by the United States. It is easy to settle down under the umbrella of the United States' military forces, but unless we make our contribution we cannot expect NATO to hold the peace as it has for the past 35 years.
I praise the Americans for their contribution in Europe. It is up to us to make ours. That is one of the reasons why it is important that we hold fast to the decision to go for Trident. It is the best. It is expensive, but one has to pay a lot for the best. A system that is deep in the oceans of the world and capable of launching one of the most deadly weapons is the deadliest deterrent. That is the way to counter the ever-growing threat of Russian forces and nuclear armaments, which my hon. Friend the Minister described.
My hon. Friend the Minister also spoke about the style of the Navy. It was a privilege for me to serve in it for a short time many years ago. What my hon. Friend said about the Navy's esprit de corps and reputation throughout the world is true today. Much of that goes back to tradition, and the person who founded that tradition was Lord Nelson. He is our most revered naval figure, and formed the modern Navy. He inspired by his unique leadership and injected a new strand of humanity into the running of the Navy, to say nothing of his skill as a naval commander.
Those qualities are epitomised by HMS Victory, which is in commission in the Royal Navy. It is an important part of the Royal Navy's central tradition. The Navy maintains it and it would be a fundamental mistake if HMS Victory were taken out of the Navy's hands and handed over to private enterprise to be exploited as a tourist attraction. The presence of HMS Victory and its connection with Lord Nelson and all that that means to the tradition of the Royal Navy is important in training and is an inspiration to the Navy. HMS Victory is not to be just a tourist attraction. It means something special to the Navy and must be kept under its control and care.
I should like to conclude by considering the old and rather hairy story about the sinking of the Belgrano. I am


convinced that the decision had to be made in a short time. It was impossible to allow a naval commander to have the ship in his sights and not give him the order to sink it. The sinking was in the interests of all who were at sea in the Falklands area and elsewhere. I do not believe that the order was given on any ground other than that of securing the safety of those at sea. It bottled up the Argentine navy and was one of the most significant events of the war, which changed the pattern of it. I praise that courageous and almost monumental decision, which enabled the campaign to be concluded successfully. I hope that, when the story dies, people will realise the importance of what was done.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: We have had a wide-ranging debate tonight, characterised by interest and affection for the Navy. Understandably, hon. Members with many constituents who are dependent on the Royal Navy for employment have shown an interest—as also, it is fair to say, have those hon. Members who, over the years, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), have developed an affection which began during their service days and which they have carried with them during their time in the House. The debate has been characterised by an interest, affection and desire on both sides to see what hon. Members regard as the best possible deal being made available for the Navy.
However, virtually every hon. Member has put the decisions to be made before us in terms of one side or other of the Trident debate. The Labour party considers Trident to be too expensive, quite apart from any other considerations of nuclear weapons. It is likely to jeopardise other aspects of our budget. Virtually every hon. Member has made some kind of guesstimate on the cost of the project. Figures between £10 billion and £12 billion have been bandied around. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be a little more frank and forthcoming than the Minister of State was when he opened the debate. The House is entitled to a clear and concise update. I realise that in the past annual assessments were intended, but, given the press interest, the amount of speculation and the rapid depreciation in the value of the pound over the past few months, it is only fair that we should be given some idea of the cost of the project.
We are also entitled to that estimate because it is possible that the British share of likely contracts for Trident might be worth less than the 60 per cent. which was suggested some time ago. It may have gone down to as low a figure as 40 to 45 per cent. We shall be interested in whatever information the Minister can give us on that aspect.
Furthermore, it is only fair that we be given some information about the time scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) effectively questioned the certainty of the proposals for the refitting of Trident at Rosyth. I live by the river Forth and I have watched the ships going by. My two sons, who at the moment are aged three and five, are not likely to be staying in my home when the Trident submarine goes up the river Forth for a refit.
Assuming that the project were to go ahead, I understand that the department of audit of the United States Government and the Congress procurement

sub-committee have been informed that Lockheed is behind time and also beyond contract. It has been estimated that the first flight by Lockheed will not, at the very earliest, be before 1992. That suggests that it will be well into 1996–97 before we take delivery of Trident, assuming that we carry on with it.
If we do carry on with Trident, another anxiety is the possibility that, if we continue with the Polaris/Chevaline project, Chevaline will be well into obsolescence by the time Trident arrives. Indeed, at that stage there could be a gap in our defences. At that time we would not have the independent nuclear deterrent about which the Government are so proud and enthusiastic. When the Minister has finished consulting his parliamentary private secretary, perhaps he will tell us whether the other option that the Reagan Administration has been toying with, the star wars project—which probably involves even more of a guess than anything that we have heard of so far tonight—would render the whole Trident project unnecessary and irrelevant. That was one of the horses that the cowboy rode once again into the White House on, and we are interested in the Minister's views.
The Government normally look to the press for succour and support, but virtually no one in the press has any hope that the Trident project will be completed. Even in tonight's edition of The Standard, Max Hastings—a man who is not unsympathetic to the Government or the Ministry of Defence—wrote in the final paragraph of his article on Trident:
As long as the Defence Secretary must remake policy with the vastly expensive lumber of Trident and Fortress Falkland immovably shackled to his own neck, it seems unlikely that our defence posture for the rest of the century will be any more than another in the long sad series of half-hearted compromises grudgingly achieved by his predecessors.
That shows the level of support that the Government can now expect in virtually all sections of the British press. As a result, other hon. Members have put forward alternatives to Trident. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) gave us a lengthy exposition in which he almost came to the conclusion that sea-launched cruise missiles might be a worthwhile alternative. But he was not really very sure, which is the characteristic position of the alliance, or at least of one part of it. We are still not very sure whether the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was completely anti-Trident, anti all——

Mr. Ashdown: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can possibly be in any doubt, but in case he is, I shall remind him of the position. The Liberal party has opposed an independent deterrent for Britain from the time that Polaris was first considered. There is no equivocation about the matter. We are opposed to an independent deterrent. The situation could not be clearer.

Mr. O'Neill: As a member of the Labour party, I know that there is a fashion in the party for it to say one thing and for the leader, on occasion, to say another. The only thing is that the leader of the Labour party quite often has the opportunity to test his policies in office rather than being in permanent opposition.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Neill: I shall not give way. I have made the point sufficiently, and I shall not give up any more time to the hon. Gentleman. He has had his opportunity to make his position and, indeed, that of the alliance clear. After


all, he kept referring to the right hon. Member for Devonport as his right hon. Friend, so I imagine that they both agree.
But we do not see sea—launched missiles as an alternative. The reasons advanced by the Minister were quite correct, and we must add to them the question of verification. That is an important point, because, although we are talking now in the context of defence Estimates, we must appreciate our responsibilities with regard to disarmament. If our weapons were ever used as counters in disarmament talks, verification would be of considerable importance. As a result of the Government's commitment to Trident, our commitment to Polaris is probably masked. Some 7 per cent. of the total defence budget is still accounted for by Polaris, with the hidden support costs of training, repair, refit and research and development.
The other major drain on our resources is our massive commitment to the south Atlantic. Such out-of-area activity has an impact, especially when we are short of warships with which to mount a south Atlantic patrol. We now realise that the proper defence systems which are required for our ships are not coming through at the rate that they should.
The Government must recognise that the Government of President Alfonsin in Argentina are different from the one against whom we were at war two years ago. We should consider the prevailing circumstances in Argentina and recognise that if we do not move quickly, the opportunity of dealing with the democratic leader there may be denied us for years to come. We must recognise that our commitment in the south Atlantic must be considered against the defence budget and the stretching of resources.
Our responsibilities are primarily in the north Atlantic. A major and increasingly important role for our Navy is its continuing commitment to the north Atlantic. Our superiority there must be maintained. We must defend our convoy routes and offset any Warsaw pact superiority on land. Nevertheless, we must ensure that we have the vessels in which to do the work. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe spelled that out adequately. We must ensure that existing equipment is adequately supported and provided.
The report in The Daily Telegraph of 6 November gives us cause for anxiety. It is headed:
Shortage of spares hits Navy helicopters.
I hope that the Minister will comment on this when he replies. It states:
The operational effectiveness of some of the navy's frontline ships and aircraft is being seriously hit by lack of spares. The Sea King anti-submarine helicopters of 814 Naval Air Squadron in the carrier Illustrious have only two sets of a particularly vital piece of equipment to be shared among seven aircraft.
That is in contradistinction to the points raised by the Public Accounts Committee. It said that the Minister of Defence holds too large stocks of stores and spares. From the article in The Daily Telegraph it does not appear that that is the experience of the ship supplies officers of the fleet.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe was Minister in 1977 he gave the go-ahead for the installation of computers on ships. There is a considerable way to go before they are all installed. I hope that the Minister will make a statement on those matters, of which I am sure he

is well aware because they have featured in The Daily Telegraph. I can imagine that, when such matters are buried in, for example, the New Statesman under the names of journalists like Duncan Campbell, Ministers will choose to avert their gaze. But as they are jumping out from the pages of The Daily Telegraph, he will probably have read about them over his cornflakes in the morning.
The problems include more than merely supplying the individual ships. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred to the problems of the dive systems on HMS Challenger on the Clyde. I wrote to the Minister about that because there has been considerable anxiety on the Clyde. As a Scottish Member, I am aware of the nervousness caused by anything which affects the yards there. Quite correctly, there was much public interest. My hon. Friend pointed out that we were not trying to over-egg the pudding. We recognise that it is not intended to reflect on the Scott Lithgow yards or work which has been done there.
Will the Challenger's dive system have to be refitted? If so, where will it take place? How much has the present dive system cost so far? Will there be a review of the procurement arrangements? We were led to believe at an earlier stage that there were alternatives, but they were rejected in favour of an MOD design which has now been shown to be less than satisfactory. Will the Minister estimate the cost of the replacement and how long it will take for the system to be corrected?
With the hon. Member for Yeovil, I was interested in and was going to mention torpedoes, but in view of the time remaining to me, I shall not do so. The hon. Gentleman and I used much the same sources for our arguments.
Several hon. Members with constituency interests mentioned privatisation. Everyone who takes an interest in such matters must be aware of the anxiety of naval dockyard workers. There are problems with morale, and worry about the availability of future capacity and the flexibility that has traditionally been available to the Navy, when dockyards have accepted at short notice increases in demand or changes in approach. Those anxieties have been expressed to Opposition Members by the trade unions, and not only by the unions which one would associate with ideological opposition to privatisation. The Civil Service unions, which represent the entire political spectrum, spelt out in a thoughtful and important document their views on agency management. Their opposition to it was mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The unions have also expressed fears about the diversion of warship repair work to the ship repair industry generally, and they are worried about the possibility of fleet maintenance bases taking on unprogrammed work. The workers are not simply worried about their jobs; they have committed their lives to the service of the Navy and of our security. It is only fair and reasonable that their anxieties should be allayed as quickly as possible. It goes without saying that the Opposition believe that their fears could be allayed by the complete rejection of the Levine report and the maintenance of the status quo. However, we recognise that the Government might try to do their worst, for whatever perverse ideological reasons they choose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West outlined the American experience, which was contrary to many of the attitudes that are normally adopted by the Americans. It is rare for the Opposition to pray in aid the


American experience. One could expect the Soviet navy to be opposed to privatisation, but when that happens in the home of free enterprise, it puts the matter into perspective. We are not talking about the franchising of hamburgers or the changing of cleaning and catering arrangements in hospitals. Many of us believe that the security of the nation should not be jeopardised on the altar of private profit, as the Minister seems to have chosen to do.
Hon. Members have been almost unanimous tonight about the need to protect and to enhance our merchant marine force. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who made a thoughtful and effective speech, may or may not be enjoying his new-found freedom or enhanced independence. This evening, he set the tone for the rest of the debate on the subject.
We are all anxious about the future of the merchant marine. Mr. Anthony Watts of the Maritime League has said:
Unless the Government makes a definite move soon, we will no longer have a merchant navy to develop—and what will happen then to all those plans to charter merchant shipping for the transport of reinforcement supplies across the North Atlantic?
The Government's response to the widespread anxiety, which I could spend a great deal of time discussing, is that there will be an in-depth study. We all know that an in-depth study is about the next worst thing to a Royal Commission. We know that the Minister who initiates it may have made such a success or failure of his responsibilities that he will have moved on by the time the report comes out, and will have forgotten about it. Whoever comes along will not want to do anything about it. There may be a delay in the Minister actually seeing it, as the officials may decide that it is something to be put at the bottom of the tray.
If this is the Government's attitude at a time of crisis in our Merchant Navy, it is not good enough. This evening, we shall not divide the House. We did so two nights ago when we debated shipbuilding, and the two subjects are not unrelated. Some of the speeches made then by my hon. Friends, and certainly the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) when he wound up the debate, made clear the close relationship between the Merchant Navy and the needs of the shipbuilding communities.
It is not surprising that in this campaign we find some strange allies. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe referred to the statements made by Mr. Ken Gill of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and by Mr. Jim Slater of the National Union of Seamen. The close similarity between the statements made by these two men, advocating the policies of the two trade unions, and the policy advocated by Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin in his Blackadder lecture "A Maritime Strategy for Britain" is interesting.
These three men from different backgrounds came to certain conclusions. They were: promotion of the recognition of Britain's dependence on the sea; the recreation of an orderly international market based on enlightened self-interest and possibly the adoption of voluntary quota systems; the encouragement of joint shipping ventures with the developing world; the fostering of industrial relations through more effective involvement; the encouragement of a closer dialogue between shipowners and shipbuilders; the encouragement of

shipowners through improved fiscal policies and reduced regulations; the encouragement of fishing, surveying, marine business, offshore and all other related elements of Britain's maritime interests; the reappraisal of Britain's contribution to the NATO strategy; and making sure that military threats to maritime interests are deterred.
In the interests of brevity, I have had to paraphrase one or two of the objectives, but the point is clear. All parts of the maritime community are committed to the need for a clear policy that will serve to foster the Merchant Navy and provide employment for those who construct ships, for those who sail them and for the communities and the activities that support them. That is of the highest priority.
It is not good enough for the Government to say that an in-depth survey will take place. The Minister having invested his authority in it, one imagines that it will take place as quickly as possible. I assure him that over the next few months, every month at Defence Questions there will be a question asking for a statement on the in-depth report. It should not take the study long to gather the information together.
The General Council of British Shipping and a variety of other organisations have put their views on record already. We hope that, at the very earliest, the report will be ready by Easter. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that will be so. That is a reasonable time to give him. Certainly it is not unreasonable, given the plight of the industry. We want action, and we want it quickly. Our communities need this reassurance at a time when in virtually every area of maritime policy and defence policy there is terrible uncertainty.
Virtually every right hon. and hon. Member has expressed anxiety about the cost of Trident—from Government supporters who do not know how much it costs to Opposition Members who have a fair idea of how much it costs, do not like it and do not want it.
We also want to know the impact of the increasing cost on the budget. In response to a question from the right hon. Member for Devonport, the Minister admitted that the other parts of the defence budget would have to carry the load for any increase in the cost of the Trident project. In our view, if that happened and our contribution in a conventional sense and especially in a naval sense to the NATO Alliance suffered, it would only serve to weaken the Alliance, to alienate our friends and partners in the Alliance and to make our country a far less safe and healthy place in which to live.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Adam Butler): I have the feeling that naval debates have a touch of freemasonry about them. I thank all those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this one, and I thank especially my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) for his welcome to me. I cannot but be impressed by the quality of the speeches to which I have listened, but I shall be commenting on their content. The Chamber seemed to be scattered with former Navy Ministers, junior Defence Ministers, a former Foreign Secretary and—it was very nice to see—a former Prime Minister, who was here for at least half of the debate. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), like me, has just made his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as a spokesman on naval matters, and I congratulate him on his speech.
Before dealing with the main matters which have occupied the attention of right hon. and hon. Members, let me try to pick up a few of the specific topics upon which they touched. A handful of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House urged the Government to sign the law of the sea convention. I am afraid that I have to disappoint those who expected me to comment on it—although they may know better and not expect me to do SO.
For the benefit of those who do not know, I ought to explain that the convention is open for signature until 9 December. The Government are finalising their attitude to signing it. But it is long and complex. It covers a wide range of interests embracing navigation. But when the decision time comes, one finds that these matters are even more complex that they were 10 years ago.
In the area of mineral exploration, scientific research, navigation and pollution some provisions are acceptable, and some are not. So all that I can say is that we shall arrive at our decision, I hope, in the near future—I might even say before too long or, I hope, shortly.

Mr. du Cann: I understand my right hon. Friend's problems and difficulties, and no one expects him necessarily to give a specific answer now, but this is a serious subject. The matter has been on the table for 10 years. It is a matter in which British officials and British Governments have taken a leading part in international negotiations. To suggest that it is possible that at some unqualified time in the future we shall come to a conclusion is, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, simply not good enough. Will he not say in all seriousness that the conclusion will be announced to the House within the next few days, in time for signature?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend quite rightly takes me to task. I was not treating the subject flippantly. I was involved in some of the discussions within Government on this matter some four years ago, so I know something about it. Perhaps the fact that we are taking so long to decide shows the deep importance and complexity of the matter. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that if it was a simple matter we could have decided one way or the other. The fact is that it is not a simple matter. I should have liked to be able to say that we would announce the decision before 9 December. It may be possible, but I cannot commit the Government to making a statement before then. However, I very much hope that that will be the case.
My right hon. Friend gave me notice that he would raise the question of hydrographic services. It is a fact that only about one third of the waters around the United Kingdom have been surveyed to modern standards. There is a steady flow of new work and priorities must be selected. That work will continue. My right hon. Friend knows many of the people involved, and he paid tribute to the staff in Taunton. I echo his praise for their work. He also said that, while he welcomed the use of private contractors and chartered vessels to supplement the resources of the survey flotilla, he thought that the reduction in numbers had gone too far. I entirely agree that there is work that should be carried out by Royal Navy vessels and, therefore, by naval staff.
My right hon. Friend made a strong, if narrow, criticism of the time taken to produce annual reports. I

agree that the report should come out on time. I will check on the past position and try to ensure that they come out on time in future. The report now due has been completed, is being printed and should be available shortly.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us are concerned that this is one of the most effective ways in which the Royal Navy's future can be assured?
Will my right hon. Friend address himself to communication in the wider sense? I am sure that he is aware that one of the lessons from the Falklands was the lack of satellite communication. Will he say something about Skynet, the satellite communication system that will be of the greatest importance, but is still awaited?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend gave me notice that he would raise that point. In view of the time and the number of other matters with which I must deal, I shall say nothing other than that he is right. There have been problems of delay with Skynet, but there is no doubt about the importance of satellites for communication in the defence and maritime areas. I hope that we can reinforce what is currently available.
Merchant shipping occupied a number of the speeches. There should be no doubt that the figures quoted about the undoubted reduction in the merchant shipping fleet give cause for concern. At present, the overall size of the merchant fleet is adequate to meet current and foreseeable defence needs. It is because of the history of the past few years, when the run down occurred, that the Government have commissioned the joint study to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred in his opening speech. It will not be ready as early as Easter, as was requested, but it should be available by the middle of the next year. The study is important and should not be left on the shelf unread. We shall see what it says and decide how to proceed.

Mr. Douglas: Will the report be published, in view of the restrictions imposed by its confidentiality?

Mr. Butler: Initially, the report is for Ministers. Much of the information in it might be classified and it would be impossible to publish it. My right hon. Friend and the Department of Transport will consider whether an expurgated version should be made available. Normally such reports are advisory and one would not expect them to be made public.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: We will read about it in The Observer.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Members for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) mentioned Challenger. It is common knowledge that difficulties have arisen in the saturation diving system. Since it was impossible to rectify the failures in situ it was decided to redesign and simplify the system. The value of the pipework removed was under £l million. A replacement programme has been put to competitive tender and I cannot tell what the replacement costs will be. The failure was not the consequence of MOD procurement arrangements. At the time of the original order no commercial equipment wholly met the MOD requirement. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked if any blame attached to Scott Lithgow. There is no


disagreement between the MOD and Scott Lithgow and no complaints have been made against Scott Lithgow about the saturation diving system.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for not having been here to listen to his strong criticisms of the torpedo programme. I cannot comment in detail. Tigerfish has caused problems but I am glad to say that Sting Ray's development has been successfully completed in time and within costs. It entered service with Sea Kings and Nimrods last year.

Mr. Ashdown: Is it true that even now, as Sting Ray enters service, there is a requirement for a propulsion enhancement programme to increase its speed so that it can do the job for which it was originally designed?

Mr. Butler: I shall have to check that.
The main subject of today's debate was defence expenditure, within that, naval expenditure, and the impact which the cost of Trident might have on that expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the considerable increase in real terms in expenditure over the past five years under Conservative Administrations. I resent the Opposition castigating us for what we might or might not be doing in relation to the defence programme or the naval programme. In real terms defence expenditure has increased by about one fifth in the last five years and naval expenditure has benefited in the same way from increased resources.
There is no reasonable basis for suggesting that the Navy has fared other than well under this Government. In meeting our commitment to NATO, we are fully achieving the targets in Cmnd. 8758. We at any rate have met the NATO force goals. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) asked that question three times, and I began to wonder whether it would be the only subject in his speech. I suggest that when he next sees Admiral McDonald, he should ask him to whom he was referring. However, the hon. Gentleman was nicely taken up by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), who pointed out that most of the time serving officers claim that they do not have a sufficient amount of the equipment they need.
We have ordered 41 new ships since May 1979, and in real terms we are spending about £2 billion more than would have been the case had the performance of 1978–79 been maintained. In this year alone, excluding any special provision for the Falkland Islands, we are spending £500 million more in real terms.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is the Minister able to say anything definite about the two type 22s which have been delayed? In particular, can he say that both will be committed to Swan Hunter?

Mr. Butler: The answer is no. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the tenders expired and the orders again had to be put out to tender. These are being examined, and I hope that we shall be able to announce them before the end of the year. With only two ships involved, it is clear that one or two yards will be disappointed. The decisions have many implications for naval capacity and jobs in different yards. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, but at present I cannot say which way the orders are likely to go.
The debate on Trident took a fairly predictable form because it is not the first time that this matter has been

considered. I shall not discuss in depth whether or not we need Trident. Some hon. Members will not be persuaded of that. Our very firm view is that an independent nuclear deterrent must form part of our defence strategy. If we are to have a nuclear deterrent, it must be at the front of the state of the art—in other words, as up to date as it can be.
In that respect, the views of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) are futile. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) pointed out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the right hon. Gentleman?"] He apologised for not being present, but he made his speech and rushed out. It was an interesting speech. The right hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that in some way we could maintain credibility by having a second or third rate deterrent and that in some way we could have a second or third-rate nuclear missile. He did not go as far as to suggest that sea-launched cruise missiles were what he had in mind, but he seemed to think that in some way one could add a small contribution to the NATO deterrent, thereby making it more effective. He seemed to suggest that we should build Spitfires or Hurricanes because they were much less costly than Tornados or Jaguars and that in some way they could supplement the forces of the 1980s and 1990s. I wholly reject that suggestion.
It is important to put the cost of Trident into context. The position has been rehearsed many times. There has been a movement in the cost based on the rates of exchange which obtained at the time the costings were carried out. It is correct that any costing based on today's rate of exchange would show an increased dollar cost and, therefore, an increase in the total cost of Trident. But that would be in respect of the exchange rate today. The actual commitment on Trident at this moment is as little as £600 million and actual expenditure as low as £200 million. It is a fraction of the total. What we have to worry about is the rate of exchange when the bulk of the expenditure occurs.
I gave up forecasting the dollar-sterling exchange rate some time ago because I always got it wrong, but the majority of commentators say that the probability is that the dollar will weaken against sterling. Therefore, even when a revised estimate using current exchange rates is put before the House fairly shortly it must be borne in mind that that is not likely to be the exchange rate when the bulk of the expenditure takes place.

Mr. Douglas: The rate of the pound against the dollar has been held up by our ability to produce North sea oil. That has been a vital factor. When the peak years of Trident expenditure come in the 1990s, our North sea oil will be declining, so it is highly likely that the exchange rate will be much more adverse to us. The point made by the right hon. Member for Devonport will then be even more valid.

Mr. Butler: Perhaps I may debate the exchange rate with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion. I wish to deal with one further main point—the cost of naval ships and related equipment. Whether the naval budget grows or shrinks and whatever happens to the defence budget as a whole, we must make the best use of the resources available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), who has apologised for having to leave, put


forward some interesting ideas about making the men sleep on bare boards and reducing the quality of accommodation available to them. He felt that in that respect some of our ships were gold-plated. The hon. Member for Attercliffe used the term "gold-plated" in relation to ships in general and their current degree of sophistication.
It is easy to say that we need more and cheaper ships, but those ships have a job to do. One cannot sent a bare hulk to the Falklands or to any other combat area. A balance must be achieved between cost and capability. We set out to design a frigate in the shape of the type 23 which would show a significant reduction in cost compared with what had gone before. I was asked to provide figures. In the debate last year it was announced that the cost of the type 23 would be about 75 per cent. of that of the type 22. The gap may have widened a little due to the need to enhance capability, but the cost that we now expect is lower than was originally supposed. I believe that our competition policy will ensure that if the price is not reduced still further it is kept down in a way that might not have happened before.
In the procurement executive I am trying to get the best value for money in a number of ways, including competition. A number of examples already show that the cost of ships and equipment has been reduced through competitive tendering. It is certainly true that naval orders are less easy to put out to competitive tender than other forms of equipment, but we need to have arrangements whereby subcontract work is done as competitively as possible. About 76 per cent. of the subcontracts and supplies for the type 23 will be subject to competitive tender. That is why I am able to say in confidence that, compared with previous experience, I would expect the costs of the type 23 to be better maintained. [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend who reminds me about dockyards. I was going to consider them. I was not, however, allowed as much time as I would have liked. We are nearing a decision on dockyards. I realise the uncertainty and, in some cases, reduction in morale that can occur from a lack of decision, but, once we have announced how we propose to go forward, consultations will take place with the unions in the normal way.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mineral Workings Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Mineral Workings Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment.—[Mr. Garel Jones.]

Summer Time

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8175/84, Proposal for a Third Council Directive on Summer Time Arrangements, and, while recognising the reasons for the proposal, urges Her Majesty's Government to press for the retention of the existing arrangements.
The proposals contained in the Council document referred to are briefly these: that, for the next three years, the Community should retain its common starting date for summer time of the last Sunday in March, except where that day coincides with Easter Sunday, when it should be on the previous Sunday, and also that all member states should end summer time on a common date of the second Sunday in October.
Hon. Members will recall that it was agreed in 1979 under the first summer time directive that continental member states would advance their starting date by one week, and that we and the Republic of Ireland would delay ours by one week, in order to achieve a common date throughout the Community. That arrangement was thought by the Government to be a reasonable one, and it appears to have worked well in practice. In these circumstances, there would not appear to be any reason why the general principle of starting summer time on the last Sunday in March should not again be agreed. I hope that I take the House with me on that point.
The question of bringing the starting date forward by one week to avoid Easter Day is slightly more difficult. Frankly, none of our European partners seems to find any difficulty in keeping the starting date permanently on the last Sunday in March even where it coincides with Easter, and, indeed, on the continent it appears to have been regarded as more important not to move away from a starting date which is common, not only to the Community but to practically all continental European states, both east and west. This argument particularly applies to the principal Community transit countries, Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia, since unlike the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland they share common land borders with the continental member states, and dislocation through not having a common changeover date would be significant.
We do not see any particular difficulty in agreeing to start summer time on Easter Day in 1986, given that the changeover will be widely publicised in advance, and those principally concerned—such as churchgoers—will be fully aware of when the clocks go forward. However, as we have no recent experience in this country of the start of summer time coinciding with Easter Day, and as the third directive is only intended to cover the next three years, we shall have ample time for seeking amendment after 1988, should this prove necessary.
The Commission has suggested a compromise with a common ending date on the second Sunday in October, approximately mid-way between the continental ending date of the last Sunday in September and our own at the end of October.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Too early.

Mr. Mellor: I am glad to hear my perceptive colleague say that that is too early, because that is precisely the point I want to endorse.
Putting to one side for a moment the implications of this proposal for the United Kingdom, I have to report that continental member states have indicated that they are reluctant to move away from the present ending date which is aligned with that of adjoining non-member states with which they have common land frontiers.
I come now to our own interests, which are foremost in my mind. We have relied upon a number of factors in reaching our decision. We appreciate that a common ending date would have a number of advantages for some international travel, business and commercial interests, but, and we think in the end these carry more weight, we are aware that strong feelings are held in some quarters, notably in agriculture, construction and domestic tourism, as well as by members of the public who value light evenings in October for recreational and leisure purposes and who are against any substantial shortening of our present summer time period.
Whilst, therefore, the Government would have been prepared to consider the Commission's compromise proposals if other member states had been prepared to do so, in the absence of such willingness we do not feel that it would represent a balanced view of opinion in this country to move our summer time ending date to the end of September, which is the only alternative means by which harmonisation of the ending date could readily be achieved at present.
The consensus in the relevant Council working group has been that the Commission's proposal of the second Sunday in October is unacceptable, and as a result an alternative suggestion is now expected to be made to the Council of Ministers on 11 or 12 December, under which member States would retain their existing dates for the next three years. No future commitment would be implied by agreeing to this proposal which, in the circumstances, would seem to the Government to be sensible and appropriate.
I hope that I take the House with me, when I invite both sides to agree that in the circumstances our existing dates should be maintained for the next three years at least.

Mr. George Foulkes: The last time that I was at the Dispatch Box at this time of night, we were discussing the withdrawal of Greenland from the European Community. Notwithstanding the fact that it is excluded from the directive, looking at it, I must say that Greenland would appear to have got out just in time. It is with some reassurance that I see that the dependent territories of member States are excluded from the directive, because it would cause some confusion in Guadalupe to have its ending of summer time brought in line with the north of Scotland.

Mr. David Harris: The hon. Gentleman probably has not been in Europe as long as I have. If he had, he would know that Guadalupe is part of metropolitan France. It is not a dependent territory.

Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that the hon. Member has been in Europe longer than anyone, in fact, too long. I accept his correction, but I am sure that it is equally glad to be excluded. The motion is supported by the Opposition not just in relation to the starting time but the finishing time as well. We would have gone further with the wording if we had intended to table an amendment.
The arguments in favour of what the directive puts forward are slight. We are told that business men throughout Europe will find contact between each other easier—there would be a longer coincidence of office hours. However, in the United States and Canada, where there are four or five time zones, they do not find it difficult to communicate with each other from one side of the continent to the other.
We are told that timetables for the jet setters would be easier if our clocks changed at the same time, but there are relatively few of those jet setters, as the hon. Member knows, being one of them, and they are expert timetable readers and can take account of any adjustments that occur at the beginning and end of October.
All those matters could be dealt with, if harmonisation has to come about, if it came at the end of October based on the United Kingdom date. That would be advantageous everyone because it would give more summer time for all. The arguments against are overwhelming. I shall not dwell on the argument put forward in the European Parliament by our former colleague Mr. Les Huckfield, who considers that the European proposal is a charter for rapists. It is not an argument that we would advance as being the most significant.
As the Home Office report states, there would be an effect on the construction industry. Every hour worked at that time of the year is important in terms of jobs and construction in general. We are also concerned about the effect on farmers.

Mr. Eric Forth: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the construction industry, is he thinking about building a greater Europe?

Mr. Foulkes: No, I spoke in the context of building a greater Britain and of building more in Britain during periods of daylight.
We are also concerned about the tourist industry. Mr. Holmes of the Scottish Tourist Board writes to me as follows:
I have checked with the British Tourist Authority who say that their view and that of the UK national tourist boards is that British Summertime should remain unchanged since at present it contributes to an extension of the tourist season.
I have also called Mr. Ian Melrose of the Scottish National Farmers' Union. The Scottish NFU is strongly opposed to the proposal. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will appreciate, much work is done on the farm during October in relation to winter sowings, work with the cattle and other preparations for winter.
Those are strong arguments. When all that has been said, the House may wonder why the Opposition were anxious to discuss the proposal—albeit briefly. First, we were concerned about a report in The Times on 24 October to the effect that the Government would abide by a decision of the European Parliament on the issue. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not the case. I see him nodding, but I hope that he will put his view on the record.
Secondly, the change is being proposed under article 100 which—as experts on Europe will know—requires a unanimous vote of Council before it can be implemented. It is ironic that a unanimous vote is required, and that therefore there should be a veto on summer time but not on subjects such as the budgetary discipline of Europe which are—although I would not belittle the importance of summer time—infinitely more important.
As unanimity is required, we require an assurance from the Government that they will not give in to pressure in any way, or relinquish their authority in the European Parliament. We need an assurance now—as an Order in Council is required to implement this proposal in the United Kingdom and there is no further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny—that the Government will stand firm not just for the next three years but into the foreseeable future. The farmers, the tourist industry and the construction industry—on all of which many jobs depend—seek such an assurance.

Mr. David Maclean: I am pleased that the House is so poorly attended for this debate, because that must mean that Her Majesty's Government have made the correct decision. If my hon. Friend had come to the Dispatch Box and said that we were to go along with the proposal, the House would have been packed and the debate would have lasted for the full one and a half hours.
It is true that there are problems for international travellers, but it is my experience that most airline personnel are capable of working by the 24 hour clock and of working by half a dozen different systems at the same time—Greenwich mean time, Alpha time, Zulu time or whatever it may be. There is no great hardship for such people in continuing with the present arrangements.
I do not want to waste time in a debate about time. However, there is one group of people whom I should like briefly to mention. I am thinking of the farmers. I echo the comments the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that it is vitally important for the agricultural interests that the present arrangements should be continued not just for three years but for all time—or at least until some awful climatic alteration changes the hours of darkness naturally. I should not like my hon. Friend to say that the present arrangements will continue for the next three years but that after that we shall fall into line. It is vital for agriculture that the present system continues indefinitely.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), I came here just to hear the announcement. My fear was aroused by the magazine Europe '82 of October 1984 which implied that we might have to conform with the rest of Europe. We are a separate country, and there is no need for us to conform. The proposed alteration is far too early. We must maintain our individuality. I am assured by what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. The word "harmonisation" always fills me with fear in regard to the European Community. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that it does not occur in this case. I am pleased to hear that the Government will keep the present arrangements in force.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I might have a faulty memory, but I recall that perhaps 12 years ago, when the House discussed summer time after an experiment you, Mr. Speaker, were extremely brave and voted with a small minority against the practicalities of it. In your present neutrality you will be listening to the

debate in a quite different way. My view has altered. We are wet and weak in our attitude to summer time. We should maximise our hours of daylight. If we turn our backs on Europe saying that we disagree for a special national reason on this issue, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will speak to his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science about corporal punishment as we are now adopting double standards. We are agreeing on one because it suits us and disagreeing on another.

Mr. Mellor: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). It is not every week that he comes down from Carrick, Cumnock, not to mention the Doon valley, ready to heap praise on the Government——

Mr. Foulkes: That is true.

Mr. Mellor: —for our wisdom. I am glad that on this occasion, if on no other, he is at his most perceptive. I thought that he made a good speech. I am sorry that his reputation as an orator with his colleagues went ahead of him so that not many of them were here to hear him. His speech was good and deserves an answer. We regretted press reports in October—they were utterly misleading. We never intended to agree with the proposal. We examined it on its merits, just as the Government did in 1979 and just as we shall do again in 1988. The case for doing what we recommend is clear. I dare say that it will seem equally clear cut in 1988. I cannot anticipate precisely what the circumstances will be then, but I should have thought that there would have to be a convincing change in the material factors to make us change our minds. I hope that that is the assurance which the hon. Gentleman seeks. I appreciate how important the issue is in Scotland where the consequences of change would be much graver than further south.

Mr. Foulkes: I thank the Minister for that. Let me give him the reassurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that we shall take the same attitude in 1988 in Government.

Mr. Mellor: I shall be interested to know what happens in 1988. Even on a subject such as British summer time, the British people do not deserve to have that decision taken either by the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reasons for the matter before the House this evening are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) suggested, nationalist, but they can be seen in an entirely pragmatic and reasonable light? We are here making a decision which is based on common sense, pragmatism and reason. It has nothing to do with any sort of nationalist approach or divergence from the other countries of Europe, merely that we are doing what seems to us to be sensible and natural. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that.

Mr. Mellor: I stand here at the Dispatch Box, as ever, as the embodiment of pragmatism and reasonableness. On that welcome note, which I see is greeted with assent on both sides, I shall quit while I am ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8175/84, Proposal for a Third Council Directive

on Summer Time Arrangements, and, while recognising the reasons for the proposal, urges Her Majesty's Government to press for the retention of the existing arrangements.

Meat and Poultrymeat (Health Controls)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7685/84, 7686/84 and 7948/84; and in respect of 7685/84 and 7686/84 supports the Government's approach in pressing for charging provisions which reduce distortions to trade; and in respect of 7948/84, supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that the provisions of any new directive should be based on a scientific assessment of the available information as to safety in use and should take full account of the interests of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry.
I shall deal first with the two documents concerning the harmonisation of charges for inspection of meat, that is 7685/84 and 7686/84.
The background to this subject lies in the strenuous criticisms which were initially made by the poultry processing industry in this country some years ago. It argued that the Community requirements for inspecting poultrymeat were not being properly enforced elsewhere in the Community and it was therefore subject to unfair competition. The Government argued on behalf of our industry in Brussels and in 1981 the Commission brought forward proposals intended to remedy the problems. One of its proposals to reduce the distortions of competition was designed to harmonise the charges which were paid by the poultry processing industries of the member states to meet the cost of the inspection work.
The proposal was amended this year by the Commission, which also produced a parallel proposal to cover red meat inspection costs. The Commission proposed that a flat rate charge be made on the industry, with responsibility for any extra costs which were incurred being met by the authorities responsible for the inspection work. In Great Britain meat inspection is the responsibility of local authorities, which have the power to charge the costs of the work to the slaughterhouse operator. The effect of the proposals would therefore have been to place on local authorities a new financial cost. It was because a potential new cost would be placed on local authorities that the Select Committee on European Legislation originally recommended these proposals for debate.
During study of the Commission's proposals in the Council of Ministers an agreement has emerged that the form of the legislation should be further adjusted. The concept of a fiat rate charge is being replaced by a minimum charge, enabling member states to charge more than the standard rate, up to the level of their actual costs of inspection. This will enable local authorities to continue to obtain reimbursement from slaughterhouse operators for their full costs; and this, of course, resolves the problem identified by the Select Committee.
I should add that the proposals, which are now being discussed as a single joint text covering both red meat and poultrymeat, also make provision to implement a longstanding decision at the Council of Ministers to set a charge on imports from non-Community countries, to cover the cost of inspecting meat at the ports.
In its present form the proposal leaves open the level at which the standard, or minimum, rate of charge would be set. The level and the detailed arrangements would be

set in further legislation by the middle of next year. The rules would then become effective from 1 January 1986. There has been discussion in the Council whether the minimum charge should be set in the proposals before us today. Progress in considering the levels has so far however been rather slow and it is not at all clear that the Council will be in a position to take decisions on this aspect when it next meets.
I am well aware that these proposals are the subject of criticism by the slaughtering industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister has carefully considered the arguments put to him and has explained his views to the industry. We understand fully that the industry disagrees with the principle that the costs of meat inspection should be met by the industry. Nevertheless, I can offer no hope that the Government will change their policy on this issue; a policy which has been maintained over a substantial period of time by successive Governments.
I have sympathy with the argument put forward that standards of inspection for poultrymeat should be harmonised before inspection charges can be harmonised. There would clearly have been advantages in proceeding in such a logical manner. We have pressed for the harmonisation of the standards of inspection of poultrymeat, and will continue to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister of State stressed the urgent need for action on this matter at the last Agriculture Council. So we are to a considerable extent in agreement with the industry on this point. However, I do not consider that it is necessarily unjustifiable to make progress on both fronts at the same time; and since the proposals on charging are before us we are prepared to consider them in order to help to remove distortions in competition between the industries of Community member states.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: If my hon. Friend can answer my question, she may go a long way towards allaying the fears of the poultry industry, which have been forcefully expressed to me, and no doubt to many of my colleagues. There is concern that if Ministers go ahead and agree a standard charge for poultrymeat there will be distortions. It is more important to concentrate on the standard and quality of poultrymeat inspection. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that she will not go ahead with agreeing a standard charge before the quality of inspection point has been settled?

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend will see that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is on the Front Bench. He is seized of the importance of getting the standards of inspection harmonised, but there does not seem to be a reason for not seeking to avoid what would be a distortion if there was not harmonisation of minimum cost. I assure my hon. Friend that we are fully seized of the industry's view that that is important in preventing distortions.
It is also argued that these proposals will not achieve complete harmonisation of charging practice, and this is true. However, there is also a provision for a review of the system. If the legislation were approved, we would have recognition in Community law of the principle of harmonisation and a minimum rate. These would provide a basis on which to build further in the future.
Finally, I should explain that an agreement on this issue at the Council of Ministers would have further implications of benefit to the meat industry. A range of other proposed measures is currently blocked in the


Council and is to be brought into force only when the harmonisation of charges is settled. These other measures include import arrangements related to control of foot and mouth disease, brucellosis testing, and some adjustment of the rules for control of classical swine fever. They also include two provisions of importance to the poultrymeat industry itself, namely, the extension of the authority to produce New York dressed poultry and to chill poultry by immersion without subsequently freezing it. The Government will take account of the interest of the industry in those other issues in assessing their position when the proposal comes before the Council again.
I come now to the proposal in document 7984/84, which would amend the existing controls over the use of hormone growth promoters.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend leaves the first order, I should be grateful if she would clarify one matter. She said that the cost of inspection that is not borne by the processor should fall on the rates. On whom does the cost fall for inspecting poultry and meat products imported from the European Economic Community to ensure that they are correctly graded? Does it fall on local ratepayers, or on United Kingdom taxpayers generally, since the benefit or disbenefit of inspection or lack of inspection is not concentrated in the area of the port, but is spread throughout the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Fenner: If I am to give my hon. Friend an accurate answer, I shall get a response that I can send to him in a note. I take his point and will answer it later.
As the House will recall, the preparations which are currently allowed consist of a solid pellet implanted in the ear of a beef animal. The implant slowly releases a hormone which improves the feed conversion of the treated animal. These hormone implants represent important tools of management to livestock farmers which reduce costs and are of benefit both to him and the consumer.
A number of these implants have been licensed in the United Kingdom for some years under the stringent controls of the Medicines Act 1968, under which Agriculture and Health Ministers have to be satisfied as to the safety—that includes the consumer's safety—quality and efficacy of a product before it is allowed on the market.
Some years ago there was a scare in Italy over baby food that was discovered to be contaminated with a forbidden hormone growth promoter. The baby food had been made from carcases originating in France. The result, predictably, was a call for panic legislation at European level. After much discussion, the controls currently in force were agreed. They made little difference to the United Kingdom because, by contrast with some member states, we already had good regulatory machinery in operation.
A feature of the existing European controls is that member states are allowed to avail themselves of five active ingredients for these implants. Three are found naturally, namely, testosterone, progesterone and oestradiol 17 beta. Two are derived from sources outside the animal body, namely, trenbolone and zeranol. Preparations based on the last two are widely used in the United Kingdom beef industry— and elsewhere in the world. However, the European Commission has been required to produce a scientific assessment of those five

active ingredients with special respect to their safety. The outcome of its deliberations has been that the three natural substances have been declared safe, while judgment ha; been suspended on the two synthetics pending the provision of further scientific information.
In passing, I may say that the information shortfall or trenbolone was made up almost immediately, while that on zeranol is being prepared.
The document before the House translates the scientific findings into new controls and advances other aspects of the controls over the preparations. First, it is proposed that member states should allow the use of preparations based on the three "natural" active ingredients. There would be a Community system, of authorising preparations based or them. Secondly, it is proposed to ban preparations based on the two synthetic active ingredients. Then there are proposals imposing much stricter controls over the use of all of those preparations, such as the random sampling of live animals on farms and in abattoirs and the sampling of carcases and meat at all stages of manufacture and transport from abattoir to consumer. Meat products are, of course, included.
The United Kingdom can obviously agree with the proposal that products based on the three natural active ingredients should be authorised for use, but some member states cannot apparently do so. That raises two important issues. First, their attitude means that the advice of the Commission's scientific working group is being disregarded. Secondly, if some member states use the preparations and others disallow them, the latter may try to block the imports of meat from the former. Trade upsets within the EC could be significant. The same problem would arise for third country supplies. We believe that scientific advice should be followed here and that there can be no justification for disregarding it.
The proposed ban on trenbolone and zeranol would have repercussions on our beef producers, as they would have to switch to alternative products, but we believe that the information submitted will clear trenbolone, and it: is a matter for regret that the Commission has been so slow to examine it. Zeranol is used in many countries and has been cleared by many regulatory authorities, including our own. The trade consequences of a ban on zeranol must be serious for the EC, and it is to be hoped that this proposal will be reconsidered on the basis of scientific knowledge.
It has been the United Kingdom's policy all along, and will remain so, that the controls to be applied to the use of hormone growth promoters should be based on a strict scientific assessment of the facts.
There can be no quarrel with the idea that proper controls must be exercised over the use of hormone growth promoters, and there can be no objection in principle to the extension of detailed controls proposed in the draft directive, but we must take every care that we endorse only practical propositions. For example, it is unrealistic to propose that every implant must be done by a vet. I do not believe that it would be operated in practice in any member state. Similarly, although checks on live animals, meat and meat products may be desirable, we must recall that the work and tests involved are costly. We need to test at no higher level than statistics show will reveal whether there is abuse of the preparations. We must approach with caution the proposition that tests must automatically be carried out where there is no suspicion that an offence has


been committed. Although random testing is accepted elsewhere in British law, we must be careful that it goes no further than is justified in protecting consumer safety.
I hope that I have explained the documents, and I shall listen with care to the views of hon. Members.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I shall deal first with the poultry meat regulations. The motion shows that the Government's aim is to reduce distortions in trade. That section does not have the support of the British Poultry Federation, which objects to it. I quote from a letter dated today and sent to me by hand, which says:
The motion under discussion, so far as it relates to poultrymeat hygiene inspection, seeks support for the Government's approach in pressing for charging provisions which reduce distortions in trade. It is tabled in the teeth of the opposition of the poultrymeat industry, not only in the United Kingdom but also throughout the EEC.
Charges are the symptom, but not the root cause of distortions of competition arising from poultrymeat hygiene inspection. The basic problem is a widely differing interpretation of the same European legislation as to what staffing levels and hygiene procedures are appropriate to ensure that birds are fit for human consumption.
At the root of the objections of the British Poultry Federation and other bodies to the proposed regulations is their belief, with which I agree, that what is being asked for is approval for a set of regulations made without deciding what are the predeterminates on which one should regulate. If one wants regulations, one should know what one is going to regulate. So far, the EEC has not determined that.
The letter continues:
In the United Kingdom our standards of inspection are acknowledged to be more onerous than in other countries; consequently the number of birds that can be sold at top quality prices is less, and the costs of staffing and administration arc greater, than for our competitors.
The motion will do nothing to eliminate distortions of competition as to the grading of birds".
Without equality of grading of birds, there can be no effective control over how one discriminates and how one works the regulations. There is no EEC-wide agreement on the grade or quality that the poultry industry has to meet. As long as that is missing, there will be distortion of trade both internationally and nationally.
It is no good saying that this order will lead to harmonisation if we do not know what a grade one poultry bird is from one country to another, or one part of this country to another. The Opposition may want a common, harmonised procedure to inhibit distortion of trade, but I cannot believe that these proposals aid that. In fact, I fear the reverse.
There is also the problem of costs. As the Minister knows, there are three proposals. There is that of the European Parliament, Assembly— call it what one wishes—which suggests that all costs should be borne by the Community. There is that from the Commission, that all costs should be borne equally across all countries, between producer and member Government.
Then we have these proposals, to which Her Majesty's Government appear to agree. The cost of the inspection will be borne wholly, solely and completely by the producer, who will have to pass it on to the consumer. I must advise the Minister that that introduces distortion. If French, Belgian or Dutch poultry producers have

inspection costs carried by their Governments whereas ours have to be borne by our producers, our producers will carry a distorted penalty into the market place which they cannot reasonably be expected to bear.
However much I would like competition on poultry meat hygiene inspection to be uniform and fair throughout the Community, I do not accept that the proposals before us achieve that end.
I turn to the difficult problem of trenbolone, zeranol and other such products. There is clearly a major difficulty, because we cannot ascertain whether they are in the carcase. That is true of a number of these products. The naturally occurring ones are excluded because it cannot be ascertained from examining the carcase whether they have been used. However, they palpably aid growth and they are growth promoters. I ask the Minister to tell us the procedure that will be adopted to enable trenbolone to come back into use. Will there have to be a unanimous verdict or will there be a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers? Is the House to have the power in future—it has always had it in the past—to permit the use of hormone additives? I have a suspicion that the proposals imply that a majority decision in the Council of Ministers would allow that which we have hitherto prohibited to be available in Britain as a growth promoter. I would be unhappy at that.
We have major objections to the poultrymeat proposals, but we accept that there are detailed difficulties on the use of hormome additives, future adaptation, scientific advance and the introduction to the market of new products. Will it be in the power of the House to inhibit their use in Britain for the safeguarding of our consumers, or will that issue be transferred to a majority decision of the Council of Ministers? I should be extremely unhappy if consideration of new products of the trenbolone type, or whatever they might be, are transferred away from the House and the scrutiny of the Chamber to another body.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the poultry industry. I do not intend to detain the House for long. To a certain extent, I welcome the paper that has been put before us by the European Community for the equalisation of payments for the examination of poultry costs. However, there is a major factor, which has been touched upon by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), that causes our poultry farmers dissatisfaction. There is such a dichotomy in the payment of veterinary costs for the examination of poultry throughout the EEC that much depends on the country from which the system is operated as to the cost of the meat when it is sold. In some respects, it can be regarded as a hidden surplus, especially in turkeymeat. In speaking on behalf of the turkey farmers of Lancashire, I can say with firmness and sincerity that they are greatly worried about the pricing between France and Britain. One turkey farmer informed me that he was paying 9p per turkey in veterinary examination charges. That amounted to £22,000 per year, which is a great overhead in the production of turkeys.
The producers are greatly concerned that there is no unity of standard for examination of poultry within the Community. Higher standards exist in Britain than anywhere else in the Community. As a consequence, Britain rejects or downgrades birds that other parts of the Community allow through the examination net as grade A


birds. They then command a higher price and are imported into Britain on that basis. Those birds, if tested in Britain, would not meet our high standards.
Before we consider any further step towards the equalisation of payments, we must put before all else the equalisation of standards. That is looked for by the poultry producers as a major step towards protecting their markets from unfair competition from the Community. It will also ensure that we can compete economically in the export of turkey and poultrymeat of various sorts.
I welcome the comment from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that we are fighting hard as a Government to ensure that equal standards will be adopted in the Community in the near future. I wish the Government all power to their elbow. Before they sign any agreement binding Britain to an equalisation of cost policy, I urge them to keep in the back of their mind and in the forefront of any negotiations the equalisation of examination standards.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: The hour is late, and brevity would be commendable, not least because several of my hon. Friends hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I want briefly to consider certain features of the draft instruments pertaining to health aspects of red meat and poultrymeat and the draft instrument on the implantation of hormones in animals.
I have three brief observations to make on the draft instruments on red meat and poultrymeat, following the cue given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of taking them together. The objective and the goal must be the seeking of harmonisation of health inspection between member states. I do not think that there is any need to stress or to detail the arguments for that, other than to say that, unless harmonisation prevails, certain individual member states will be disadvantaged. I therefore welcome the principle of seeking to obtain greater harmonisation embraced by the two draft instruments.
But, secondly, having made that point, I give warning that I am unhappy about certain aspects of the draft instruments, because I do not think that they will necessarily achieve their objective in this very respect. I understand why some people find it attractive for the cost of health inspection to be borne by the public authorities but reimbursed by a minimum charge to the slaughterer or importer. However, that will not do much to iron out the current discrepancies, differences and variations. Indeed, it might increase them. It could create fresh scope for national protection.
Different member states have different slaughter procedures and different administrative systems for inspection. They have different abattoir overheads and different standards of inspection. Much else also differs. This creates obstacles to harmonisation both in the degree and cost of inspection. Moreover, whatever formula the Council determines, it will surely be open to various interpretations, according to the sympathies of each member state.
I do not believe that harmonisation in health inspection can be achieved significantly or satisfactorily unless the cost of that inspection is funded by the taxpayer. There are one, two or possibly more routes by which the money can go from the taxpayer to cover the cost of health inspection,

but the underlying principle is the same. Inspection takes place for the benefit of the taxpayer or consumer, so it is right that the cost of it should fall on the taxpayer's shoulders. More importantly, this is the only way that we can get round the potential and real disadvantages of continuing the lack of harmonisation. It is better to achieve harmonisation in effect, by removing all costs of inspection from the producer or slaughterer, rather than to fail to achieve it despite direct intentions so to do, as in the regulations. So much for the first two regulations.
I shall deal with more brevity with the third draft instrument, dealing with hormone implants for cattle and the recommendations found in article 5. I welcome the authorisation of the natural hormone substances oestradial, progesterone and testosterone. There is no room for debate on that. These substances and their derivitives have been appraised on a scientific basis. Their use in farm animals does not present a hazard, either to animal or consumer. However, that is not the only point to be made.
If such substances are authorised by the EC, they must be authorised by and in each member state. For that which is authorised in the directive to be banned in certain member states is unacceptable. In its own small way that would undermine the concept of a common market. It would be a thinly disguised ploy by some member states to protect their domestic producers. I urge my hon. Friend to bear that in mind.
Article 5.2 causes me anxiety. I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister said tonight. It states
the aforementioned substances"——
—the natural hormones to which I referred—are to be
administered by a veterinarian.
As the Minister said, this must not be. There is no earthly reason why a farmer should not administer such substances. Farmers are skilled to do that. If a person is not so skilled, he should not be a farmer. It makes no sense to deny farmers the authority to administer the substances. Then there is the cost argument.
Such a measure would significantly increase the producer's costs.
I have been told that an experienced team of administrators can take up to four hours to implant 200 steers in ideal conditions. The thought of the cost of that operation expressed in vet bills is alarming.
Nor should we overlook the possibility that such a measure might lead less scrupulous producers either to administer products illegally or to administer cheaper, proscribed products.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but did he say proscribed products?

Mr. Hunter: Yes, I did.
The last observation which I wish to make concerns article 5.5. With regard to the synthetic compounds zeranol and trenbolone, I was somewhat reassured by the Minister's remarks. I understand that technical and scientific studies called for by the EEC Commission are still uncompleted, despite the fact that manufacturers' evidence of safety was submitted some months ago. Until these reports are available, we can only reserve judgment on the products. It therefore follows that it is quite absurd for these draft regulations to propose to ban these substances after 1 July. That is premature and unfounded. The decision should be made only in the light of scientific evidence and when that scientific evidence is available.
I want to avoid the sin of repeating my arguments, but I confess that there is cause for concern in these draft regulations, laudable though their overall objective undoubtedly is.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Not much has been said—indeed, nothing at all—about the categories in this country which will benefit or suffer from the proposed regulations. First, there is the consumer. She would be buying a class A bird if it were inspected in Britain, but if she buys an imported one she might well be cheated, simply because the enforcement standards, quite apart from the classifications, are not common throughout the whole of the EEC.
For example, the regulations about the amount of water permitted in a frozen bird are simply not adhered to in France, and those who buy poultry imported from France could find that they are buying a load of French water and, consequently, are paying more per lb than they thought.
That is why I ask: who bears the cost of the inspection at the ports? If this falls on the local ratepayers, there is an incentive to let the produce through uninspected. On the other hand, it is not the local ratepayers primarily who will suffer if substandard poultry products are imported through their port. In addition, there will be a greater incentive for EEC exporters to channel their exports through those ports where it is known that the inspection is most lax. Therefore, the consumer is the first person put at risk by failure to have common standards, commonly enforced.
In this context, it is interesting to note that during this debate not a single Liberal or SDP Member has been present, so little is their interest in the consumer.
The interests of the producers does not mean just those who rear poultry, but the many thousands of people whose livelihood lies in processing poultry. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that the local authority and not central Government can bear part of the cost above the minimum charge, but the ratepayer is already tortured and severely constrained by the increasing proportion of expenditure that falls on the rates rather than on central Government. In many cases, the amount that local authorities can spend is up against the limits imposed by central Government, so it is no real reply to say that they can bear part of the burden instead of placing it all on the processors. It is beyond dispute that the standards to which we religiously adhere but which our continental competitors do not even pretend to observe mean that the cost of inspection in this country can make our product apparently uncompetitive, although it would not be uncompetitive if the same standards were applied on the continent.
What is to be done about this? My hon. Friend the Minister will be relieved to hear that I did not argue on the order relating to summer time that the solution was for the Commission to ensure that the sun rose and set at the same time in all EEC countries, because that would not have been a practical solution to the problem, although it would have been a reasonable ground for harmonising summer time. In this context, however, there is no such fatuous situation. It lies within the power of those who control the destinies of the EEC to ensure common standards of meat and poultry inspection throughout the Community: and as

an incentive, to make the free movement of such products contingent on the establishment of common standards of inspection and enforcement. The whole concept of the EEC depends inherently on that, even if it is not explicitly stated. It is the lack of common standards that causes the distortions that we are considering today.
Therefore, I exhort my hon. Friend the Minister to put the horse before the cart and to tell the EEC, which wants common charges, that we will not agree to those common charges, which we also want, until common standards are established. Until both those objectives are achieved we should pursue the course very sensibly prescribed by the European Assembly— so often misdescribed as the European Parliament— that the differential cost of enforcing differential standards should fall on the central Governments concerned and not on the producers, who are not themselves responsible for those differential standards and who have no means of remedying the situation except through their national Parliaments and Governments.
It is for that redress that producers in the United Kingdom look to my hon. Friend the Minister today, and so do I.

Mr. David Maclean: I have only a few quick, brief points to make, because I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I shall be much more brief than document 7948/84 which has been circulated to hon. Members. I hope that I shall be slightly more intelligible than that document.
When I tried to read Mr. Giolitti's letter to Mr. Claude Cheysson, I was glad that it was translated from Italian. I wish, however, that the translation had gone much further.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: And been legible.

Mr. Maclean: And been legible. I had to give up when I reached page nine, when I read:
Genotoxicity was examined by mutagenicity tests and by the capacity for DNA binding, Neither beta-Trenbolone nor alpha-Trenbolone showed any mutagenic activity in prokaryotic systems nor in any in vivo test for bone marrow and germ cell cytogenetics.
However, the House will be pleased to hear that,
Clastogenic activity in vitro against human lumphocytes in culture were negative".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that all those words are in order.

Mr. Maclean: I do not think that those words are in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can reconcile myself to the fact that I might not know much about chemistry, but I have never before come across "lumphocytes". I presume that the document refers to lymphocytes, unless in the past few days some EEC boffin has discovered a new substance called "lumphocytes". Ignoring this document would be the best thing to do. Common sense should prevail.
These documents have gone a little overboard when dealing with trenbolone and zeranol. I do not believe that we should make them subject to full Council agreement when all other products can be approved by the Standing Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said, it is premature to go for a ban on those products when we have no positive evidence that they can be harmful. Zeranol is used in 40 other countries, and it is used extensively in the United States. We all know how rigorously the United States enforces medicine safety. I believe that we are being a


little excessive in going for a ban on trenbolone and zeranol, because we have no firm evidence that they can be harmful.
I am pleased that Oestradiol 17 beta, Testosterone and Progesterone have been given a clean bill of health. The only question that remains is whether they should be prescribed by veterinary surgeons or whether it should be left to the farmers to administer them. I do not think that a case has been made for the administration of those drugs to be the exclusive province of veterinary surgeons. The vast majority of farmers can do the job properly and well. However, if in future years we detect that there have been cases of abuse, where farmers have not followed the recommended guidelines and have injected the products shortly before the animals were sent for slaughter, we should look at this matter again. There would then be a case——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: And prosecutions.

Mr. Maclean: In addition to the prosecution of those concerned. Of course, there would then be a case for looking at these drugs and perhaps giving veterinary surgeons the power to administer them. That case has not been made, and that action would be premature.
Unless farmers administer these products carefully there will be increasing consumer resistence. One of the greatest threats faced by agriculture in daily fanning comes not so much from quotas or anything that the EEC may do but from the fact that consumers are worried about the amount of fat in milk and butter. There is some resistance to buying those products. Similarly, there is a certain amount of concern that too much of the meat arriving on our shelves may have too many hormones in it. Certainly there is a demand for healthier and hormone-free food. The Ministry should make it clear to farmers that this trend exists and that they must watch what the consumers want.
I do not believe that at present we need to ban these products, but we should give a clear warning to fanners that in future years product sales will be affected not by a ban but by consumer resistance—the housewife will not buy. Time is needed, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give our fanners time to switch over in future years to using fewer hormones in beef production, because that is what the consumer wants.

Mr. David Ashby: The motion provides that
any new directive should be based on a scientific assessment of the available information as to safety in use and should take full account of the interests of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry.
I regard that with a great deal of trepidation, because I believe that we should consider only the interests of the consumers. Livestock producers and the meat trade will go on producing meat and the pharmaceutical industry will go on producing Pharmaceuticals. The consumers have to eat the products, and it is up to us to see that those products are as safe as they can be.
We are discussing scientific assessments. I have the gravest fears about the present results of scientific assessments. Additives to meats and other foods should be studied with the greatest care. I am not complacent about the way we handle foods and the additives we use in foods and meats.
I spent about an hour and a half last Monday with someone who is eminent in this sphere. He explained to me at great lengths the time bomb we are storing by allowing hormones to be used as growth additives. The effects of hormones in our foods will not be fully known for 20 or 30 years. It sometimes takes three generations before their full effects become known and it takes three more generations to get rid of the effects.
It may not be known to many hon. Members that in Brazil, for example, there are children of seven who are conceiving. They have been eating chickens which have had growth promoters added. They have had grave effects on the children who have had all the signs of physical maturity without emotional maturity. Doctors are finding that the age of puberty is becoming lower and lower.
A long-term study is needed. Some people are blind to the problem because they want to be blind, but many of the wiser counsels and scientists attribute that early puberty to the use of growth promoters in meat and food.
I consider this directive with the greatest trepidation. I am not complacent. Synthetic hormone growth promoters are undoubtedly bad and should not be used in any foods.
I have the gravest doubts also about natural growth promoters. We are talking about a time bomb which will explode in about 20 or 30 years.

Mr. Eric Forth: The good news about the debate is that the House is showing a characteristically lively interest in EC matters. That is right and proper, and long may it be so.
I have enjoyed the privilege of serving in the European Parliament—I use the word "Parliament" in spite of the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about that term—and I have become well aware of the meaninglessness of the wording of much of that emanates from the EC.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary interpret the words in the motion for me? They are obscure, to say the least. European Community experts often seek to seduce us down the path of wording that tries to mean all things to all men, but ends up meaning nothing. The motion invites us to
take full account of the interest of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry.
One could almost add "Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all".
How can we take account of all those interests? In the good old days when the common agricultural policy was first revised, we were given a similar form of words which invited us to support the CAP because it would simultaneously serve the interests of the consumer and the producer, give fair prices and adequate supplies and do nearly everything else. Regrettably, the CAP has not fulfilled all those objectives; it cannot.
In the same way, it would be extremely diffiult, if not impossible, simultaneously to serve the interests of consumers and producers and the interests of the meat trade and the pharmaceutical, industry. We are constantly invited to subscribe to such formulae from the EC. At best, they are meaningless and, at worst, they are positively dangerous.
It is time that the Government stopped adhering to such formulae and started asking what we really mean. I should be happier if we came clean and said that we will serve the interests of either the consumers or the producers. It is rare that we can serve both at the same time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton mentioned implementation and policing. There is a danger that we shall be invited to implement a series of recommendation throughout the EC, but that they will eventually be implemented by only a few of the member states. We shall certainly implement them, the Dutch will almost certainly implement them, we can expect the Germans to implement them and the Danes will probably implement them. After that, one would have to draw a veil over most of the other member states. Yet again, we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage. As ever, we shall adhere to the strictest standards of control, inspection, quality and hygiene, but our competitors in the EC will probably not do the same.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the House a guarantee that we shall not subscribe to the suggested new standards and regulations unless we are certain that the mechanisms exist to ensure that all other member states will simultaneously apply the standards at all times? If we can be given that assurance, we can support the motion. Otherwise, we should not support it.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has hit the nail on the head. It is well known that I have not been a starry-eyed admirer of the way in which the Community has developed over the past 10 years, but almost everybody, however starry-eyed he might have been at the beginning, is seeing the Community in a different light.
The sort of standards that we have voluntarily accepted aver the years are not always accepted in other parts of the Community, especially when they impose a cost on the producer. We have seen hidden subsidies and state aids for producers in agriculture and horticulture. Milk quotas are not adhered to in France, and Italy has done almost nothing towards introducing a system of control. Similarly in poultry production, we shall continue to have high standards but will not be able to do much to extend them through out the Community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said in a cogent speech, we are putting our producers at a significant disadvantage. This is an opportunity to use our voice in the Council to assist our producers or at least to prevent them from being disadvantaged by unfair competion in the Community.
I should like to consider charging for health inspectors in the poultry industry. Under Community law, member states are not allowed to make a profit out of the levying of charges for health inspections. If that is so, the minimum and maximum charges must be according to the lowest common denominator. If that is so, as Britain has more expensive health checks, we must incur greater costs. If those costs fall on producers they will inevitably be put at a disadvantage. I cannot see why we should sanction that disparity for the indefinite future. Athough it would be open to the Council to decide rates of charge, which might vary, the history of the Community shows that, once an arrangement is institutionalised, it is the devil's own job to change it. If we now accept that there is to be a disparity of costs between this and other countries, it will be difficult to change that.
We must get the matter right at the beginning. If we cannot get it right now, we cannot depend on the good will of other Community members, which might not be as

fussy as us about health standards. I implore the Government not to harmonise for the sake of harmonisation without getting it right at the start. As will have been seen from the interest in this debate, especially in Conservative Benches, there is grave disquiet among hon. Members whose constituents include poultry producers. They are looking to the Government to stand up for the British poultry producer and not to harmonise for the sake of it.

Mrs. Fenner: The House has shown that it intends to give the Government its views on these matters before we make decisions on this package of proposals.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) referred to pay in Belgium and other countries and the differences between payments in various countries. That is the whole point of the directive—it does not do all of the things that we want it to, but at least it does something to ensure that a minimum charge is made throughout the Community.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned trenbolone and zeranol. The draft directive provides for approval of new active ingredients and products based on them. Approval of active ingredients will depend upon a qualified majority in the Council, but the United Kingdom will play a full part in the discussions leading up to such a decision and this is our opportunity to safeguard the interests of consumers and farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is concerned that the present costs of inspection of imported meat are met by the port health authorities, which find the cost from rates raised by local authorities. I promised my hon. Friend an authoritative answer. The proposal is to set a charge to meet the costs which will be paid by the meat importer. I reiterate that we are fighting for common standards, commonly enforced, and common pricing of a minimum charge is only the first step. But it is a first step. That covers the point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham about the problem of different systems within countries.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton misunderstood me. Originally it was proposed that local authorities would have to cover any extra cost, but when the matter was rediscussed a proposal emerged which ensures that the local authorities can continue to obtain reimbursement for their costs as they do now. The Scrutiny Committee was very worried about that problem.
The hon. Member for City of Durham and my hon. Friends have properly pointed out the concern of the British Poultry Federation in this matter and we understand it well. As I said in a letter to the federation:
When the subject was discussed at the Council this month, John MacGregor spoke strongly on both points, and we have maintained our reservation that standards should be harmonised before charges. As a result of our efforts, there is to be a discussion in the Standing Veterinary Committee later this month on the merits of the Commission's ideas on modified poultrymeat inspection.
I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friends.
We are taking steps in the right direction. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has had to go, but I am sure that he will read my answer to his comment in Hansard. I fully understand the views of the British Poultry Federation. It believes that to resist the proposal now would provide a lever for


obtaining harmonised inspection standards. We sympathise with that aim, and we are pressing for action in Brussels on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that he did not believe that charges should be made, but local authorities have had powers to charge for meat inspection in Britain for 20 years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments. Nothing is different.
I agree that we should obtain the best scientific evidence on hormone growth promoters and not disregard it. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is anxious about the effects of hormone growth promoters. The motion puts consumers first. All additives to foods should be scrutinised with the greatest care, and hormones are a potential threat for two or three generations if they are abused. The United Kingdom Government make them available and avail themselves of the best scientific opinion before allowing the use of growth promoters. Moreover, the conditions of use are carefully limited by means of product licence conditions. I am unaware of any scientific evidence that ascribes the earlier age of adolescence to the use of growth promoters.
Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has had the privilege of serving in the European Assembly or Parliament—call it what my hon. Friends will. I went to the European Assembly specifically in order to serve consumers' interests, and as a nominated member to a producer-oriented system. Thus, I am well aware of the terms of the treaty of Rome, which mentions consumers. As a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I cannot possibly accept my hon. Friend's assertion that the interests of consumers, producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry are in some way incompatible. Every day I ensure compatibility of fairness as between traders, consumers and all the interests represented in my very diverse Ministry. I assure him that I do not find those interests incompatible, and I cannot agree with him about that.
I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) that since 1981 we have been trying to secure just that prevention of distortion about which he spoke so forcefully. The level of the minimum charge is not in any way disadvantageous to us, because countries which have a lower level will not be paying the same. The point is that they will have to pay the same minimum charge. Community lawyers do not agree with my hon. Friend that there is no way in which this can be done because member states are not allowed to make a profit. They will have to comply with that minimum charge and our producers will not be placed at a disadvantage.
I do not know that I have succeeded, but I have tried to cover all the points that were made. The debate has certainly commanded great interest. The Government will carefully consider the arguments put today when the proposal comes before the Council. However, as I said when opening the debate, the setting of a minimum charge applicable throughout the Community might reasonably be seen as a positive first step towards promoting fairer competition between member states of the Community. I have emphasised that the Government support the argument that effective action must be taken to harmonise the standards of enforcement of the poultrymeat directive, and are pressing for urgent action by the Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7685/84, 76E6/84 and 7948/84; and]n respect of 7685/84 and 7686/84 supports the Government's approach in pressing for charging provisions which reduce distortions to trade; and in respect of 7948/84, supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure i:hat the provisions of any new directive should be based on a scientific assessment of the available information as to safety in use and should take full account of the interests of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 3rd December, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

PETITION

Human Embryos

Mr. David Amess: I beg to ask leave to present a petition that has been signed by a considerable number of my constituents, who have expressed concern over the contents of the Warnock report, and I share their concern, It states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure which involves purchase or sale of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless done solely for the benefit of the embryos concerned).
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray you so do.
To lie upon the Table.

Social Security (Reviews)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Gordon Brown: I wish to raise the important matter of the Government social security reviews into pensions, supplementary benefits, children's and young persons' benefits, housing benefits and the social services. Most of them were established by the Secretary of State for Social Services earlier this year to report to him by the end of the year to lead to recommendations by the beginning of next year and, presumably, to legislation in the next session.
Yet although the Secretary of State for Social Services, has said that the reviews were the most important and far-reaching reviews of the social security system since Beveridge, a number of important questions pointed out that about them remained unanswered, unexamined and undebated by the House.
When at least 7 million people depend on means-tested benefits, more than 16 million people are on low incomes, when we have poverty that no one dared imagine 20, 10 or even five years ago, poverty on a national scale that is a national disgrace, poverty that sends children to school ill clad and hungry, forces pensioners to choose between eating and heating, affects millions, yet has left British industry worse off than ever before, no one can doubt the need for wide-ranging improvements in our social security system to secure opportunity in youth, sufficiency in family life and dignity and comfort in old age.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has been prepared to call his reviews independent, objective, impartial and comprehensive. However, performance has not yet matched that ambitious claim. Although we cannot expect this evening to hear the final recommendations of the reviews, we can expect answers to some questions about the remits, the membership, the precise objectives and detailed activities of what we were told were open reviews.
The Minister who will reply must be aware of many of the widespread criticisms of the reviews. Although they were to be comprehensive, only 12 weeks were allowed for evidence to be submitted by interested parties and only the chosen few were asked to give oral evidence. Far from being independent, the entire membership of, for example, the children and young persons' review team consists of Mr. Rogers, who had to declare an interest when the Institute of Directors advocated the abolition of child benefit, and Mrs. Barbara Shenfield, whose chairmanship of the WRVS sounds promising but who just happens to be co-author of an Adam Smith Institute pamphlet, which advocates the abolition not merely of child benefit but of the welfare state. Other review members include building society managers, a biscuit manufacturer who happens to be a leading Conservative, a college lecturer who is also a former Conservative councillor and our statutory Lady Bountiful. To the public, the independent members of the independent reviews must seem as independent as the Prime Minister would like her Bishops and Archbishops to be.
While a study of the transcripts and evidence demonstrates a consensus on the need to protect and raise benefits among Labour party and trade union opinion, where they have submitted evidence, and voluntary and


charitable organisations not normally associated with the Left-of-centre parties in the United Kingdom, it is a measure of the distance between the Committee, the review teams and the reality of life in Britain in 1984 that many witnesses appearing before the Committees are frequently asked by review team members whether there is a role for the welfare state in modern Britain.
We know that the reviews will report to the Minister by December, that a paper will probably be published in the new year, that there is a central review unit co-ordinating the work of the individual review teams, and that other Government Departments are contributing to the reviews.
I have a number of specific questions which I hope that the Minister can answer this evening. Will there be further consultations on the conclusions of the review team before any decisions are finally taken by his Department? Will there, therefore, be a Green Paper instead of a White Paper published by the Department of Health and Social Security? Will the full reports of the individual review teams be made public so that those who have submitted evidence and everyone else can see the conclusions?
When we talk about Government Departments, what is the role of the Treasury in the review? Is Mr. Peter Riddell of the Financial Times right when he states that the Treasury now have rights of representation on the review teams and that this is the price that the Secretary of State for Social Services has paid for agreement to the reviews in the first place?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told us five years ago that the rich must get richer to ensure true prosperity for all, now believes that it is necessary that the poor must become poorer, whether they are in work or not, for his policies truly to succeed. Can the Secretary of State for Social Services really compare himself with Beveridge and yet accept direct control by a Chancellor who wishes to make his political reputation on destroying the legacy of Beveridge in the same way as he has destroyed the heritage of Keynes?
When a pensioner on supplementary pension has an income of little more than £5 a week, after paying his rent, and when members of a family whose breadwinner is unemployed have even less, it is regrettable that the terms of reference for the supplementary benefits review state clearly that one reason why so many people claim supplementary benefit is that the benefit levels are so generous. It is even more regrettable that the reviews have conducted no research into the adequacy of benefits, nor have they surveyed or studied public opinion among benefit claimants about the adequacy of the rates. What is more fundamentally wrong about the social security review, and about which the House deserves precise answers this evening, is what is called in Treasury jargon the "nil cost basis" of the reviews—the fact that no more public money will be available whatever the outcome of the review teams' investigations.
We are being told that, if pensioners are to benefit, the unemployed will be worse off; if single parents are to do better, the disabled will do worse; if families are to improve their position, teenagers will experience more hardship.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has gone further than that. In reply to a question he stated clearly that savings found from the benefits system could be used for reductions in taxation. That is not a nil cost basis but apparently a lower cost basis for the reviews.
Only this week the Financial Times stated that, in return for a standstill budget in real terms this year, the Secretary of State had promised real cuts in his budget for next year.
The House deserves a fuller answer than we have been given by the Secretary of State until now, and 1 expect some detailed answers from the Minister to several detailed questions. Has the Secretary of State agreed to a public spending ceiling for the social security budget? Must the review teams, individually as well as collectively, recommend lower spending, or is it the case that the review teams, which have received excellent evidence from organisations such as the policy study units on the inadequacy of benefit rates, are not in a position to recommend the precise level of benefits that should be paid, and that that will be left to negotiations between the Treasury and the DHSS?
If a public spending ceiling has been agreed, if public spending cuts can be considered but public spending increases cannot—if the review is comprehensive, but the only way the budget can go is down—is it not a complete distortion for the Secretary of State to have compared his review with that of Beveridge?
Although the review teams can consider spending cuts, they cannot consider tax-related issues. One has the right to ask in those circumstances why, under the social security reviews, pensioners stand accused, having to justify their meagre heating additions, teenagers are under scrutiny, having to defend this pitiful supplementary benefits, and mothers and children are as though on trial, having been told that £6·85 for child benefit is too generous, when unexamined, uninvestigated and undebated are the tax concessions, the fringe benefits and the gilt-edged black economy of the very rich, who have benefited by £13 billion in taxation changes since 1979? Some of them now earn more in a day than most manual workers earn in a year, at a time when inequalities are increasing faster than ever before. The text that governs the Government's conduct is not, as the Prime Minister would have us believe, that God helps those who help themselves, but that God helps those whom he has already helped.
We are anxious about the review on child benefit, which is the right of 7 million mothers and which the Prime Minister called evidence of the Government's commitment to the family. The Foreign Secretary called it the most effective means of relieving family poverty. This benefit, which averts poverty for several million families and mitigates it for millions of others without the humiliation of a means test, is now at risk.
When the Secretary of State was asked whether he was now considering the means-testing of child benefit, his reply was: that the Government were considering all options in child benefit and supplementary benefit, and that that was what a review is all about. Last May, the Prime Minister assured the country:
there are no plans to make any changes to the basis on which the benefit is paid or calculated.
Last July, the Secretary of State gave us what he called: "a categorical guarantee" about child benefit. He said that the Government did not intend, and had never intended, to change the basis of that benefit, and that that was just another scare during the election. The House needs to know now whether, under cover of this review, the Government are secretly overturning promises made to the


House and the country, and whether, without the consideration of the House, the assurances of 1983 are to become the betrayals of 1984.
The Minister must give me a precise answer to these questions. Are the detailed plans for changing the present structure of child benefit part of the work of these review teams? Are the Government now considering means-testing the child benefit—a measure that would achieve substantial savings less by eliminating the claims of the rich than by deterring the claims of the poor? As The Times suggested last week, are the Government considering a two-tier system of child benefit, with a flat rate as low as £3 a week, with the remainder means-tested?
The House cannot expect to know this evening what the precise recommendations of the review are likely to be, but the Minister has a duty to tell us whether the Conservative promises of the last election are to be honoured or are to be abandoned during the examination of these reviews. We are told that other changes are being discussed by the social security reviews.
There is also the problem of the long-term rate of supplementary benefit payments, the price protection of which was guaranteed by the Government in their election manifesto. There are fears that the means that the Government will choose to abandon price protection of the long-term rate of supplementary pension is to abandon the long-term rate altogether. That matter has apparently frequently been raised by members of the supplementary benefit review teams when interviewing witnesses. Again, we need a promise from the Government that they will hold to the pledge that they made to pensioners and others on long-term benefits when they faced the people last June.
Many people believe that that pledge also included the protection of the weekly additions and the single payments that pensioners and other groups receive. Some 2·5 million people—I suspect more after this week—receive heating additions, 75,000 people recieve clothing allowance and the latest figure is that 1·33 million exceptional needs payments are made every year.
My reading of the transcripts of evidence and of the questions put by the review teams is that it is likely that these allowances and additions will be severed. Thousands of people will be floated off supplementary benefit or pensions as a result. The Minister has a duty to tell us whether the pledge that has been made to long-term supplementary benefit claimants is to be abandoned because of the work of these review teams.
My final query is about our teenagers, who have suffered under this Government. Many have lost benefits in the first few months of their unemployment, many more are worse off because of the deduction of housing addition for those who are not householders. Statements made in the other place by Lord Young suggest that the intention is to remove the right of these teenagers to supplementary benefit altogether. The Government must know that the majority of teenagers on supplementary benefit already live in poor income households. When the Government treat youth unemployment as if it were a problem of youth, and not a problem of unemployment, what do the promises that have been made to the generation on which our future depends mean?
We are entitled to specific answers as to whether the Government's promises at the last election are being taken away by the work of these reviews. In March, the Prime Minister told the House:
We shall protect the poor and those in most need of help, honourng our pledges on benefits".— [Official Report, 8 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 665.]
Are these pledges to be honoured, or are they to be abandoned by the nature of the work of these reviews?
The Secretary of State for Social Services compared his work with that of Beveridge. I doubt whether Beveridge would have seen the similarities. The comparison is as fundamentally misplaced as the Prime Minister making common cause with Keynes and the 1944 employment White Paper. Beveridge talked of
grand and magnanimous aims removing the giant evils caused by poverty and unemployment
and
achieving security against want without a means test.
The Fowler reviews refers only to
making the best use of available resources.
In his time Beveridge represented a huge and altruistic attempt to relieve poverty and hardship in a comprehensive and unified manner. The Fowler review appears to be divisive, penny pinching and an attempt to apply the principles of the Victorian era to Britain as it approaches the 21st century. This is possible only because the Minister has forgotten and ignored the problems which Beveridge had to tackle.
This year is the 150th anniversary of the Victorian poor law commission. That commission suffered also from inadequate terms of reference, a loaded membership and political preconceptions that affected its conclusions. The Government have already shown by the activities of the review committee that their work is different from that of Beveridge in 1942. They have yet to prove that the methods, recommendations and outcome of the review will be different from those of 1834.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) for giving me the opportunity to discuss the important reviews of social security which have been initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, who has established a reputation for his interest in social security matters, should choose to use this opportunity to read out some phantasma of paranoia which are unrelated to the realities of today. In his final burst of fantasy, he took us back to 1834.
My opportunity is therefore even more welcome than it would otherwise be to reject the premises on which the hon. Member's speech was based, not least his references to poverty on a scale that no one dared imagine five or 10 years ago and to policies which have left industry worse off than ever before. As most hon. Members and most of those outside the House realise, the objective of the Government's policies is to take the burdens off industry. We wish to ensure that our economic policies strike a balance between relieving industry of its burdens and enabling it to create employment while fulfilling the obligations, which we sincerely accept, to those who are in need.
The hon. Member referred to the promises made by the Conservative party, and I am glad to explain to the House,


especially to the hon. Gentleman, how those promises have already been honoured by the Government. I tell him that he should not be led astray by whatever he reads in the organs of the press, be they distinguished or not. He should not be misled either by, in his own words, his readings of the transcript of the evidence put before the social security reviews.
Given the hon. Gentleman's assault, I shall remind the House of some of the Government's achievements on social security. Only this week we have increased benefits yet again, covering all benefits fully against inflation. Retirement pensions are 84 per cent. higher than they were when we came to office. That increase is substantially greater than the 76 per cent. increase in prices over the same period.
Supplementary benefit rates are about 5 per cent. higher in real terms than when we came to office. Child benefit has just been increased to £6·85 per child and is now at its highest ever real value. Mobility allowance has been increased to £20 per week, double what it was when we came to office, and worth about 14 per cent. more in real terms.
Expenditure on social security has increased substantially. During the last year of the Labour Government in 1978–79, the social security budget was just over £16 billion. In 1984–85 it will be about £40 billion. That is an increase of 27 per cent. in real terms. Much of that increase is due to increased numbers of pensioners, of unemployed, of one-parent families, and of the long-term sick and disabled. Nevertheless, improvements in benefit rates have added about £2·75 billion to the total budget.
The same is true of the National Health Service, but I shall not go into the details now. The major point to set against the distortions to which the hon. Gentleman has treated the House is that we have continued to honour our determination to protect the weakest in our society and we have continued to find the resources to meet those commitments. Therefore, it is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is any attack on the welfare state. and he knows that full well.
Four major reviews of social security are now under way, covering pensions, benefits for children and young people, supplementary benefit and housing benefit. Taken together, they cover some four fifths of the total expenditure on benefits, and represent the most substantial re-examination of the system since the Beveridge report was published some 40 years ago. It is important to realise that the system today is not the same as the one that Beveridge envisaged. The hon. Gentleman had a lot to say about Beveridge.
Beveridge proposed flat-rate contributions paid into a proper insurance fund to finance flat-rate benefits. We have earnings-related contributions, some earnings-related benefits, and a fund that is operated on the pay-as-you-go system. We have a wider range of non-contributory benefits than Beveridge envisaged. The scope of supplementary benefit is enormously greater than the residual role envisaged by Beveridge for national assistance. Furthermore, that is against the background that the real value of the main benefits has more than doubled between 1948 and now; and that spending is now five times what it was then in real terms.
We have therefore every reason to believe that we have a record of which we can be proud. We have now embarked upon a wide-ranging consideration of the whole

social security system. It is of great importance, which is why we have sought to involve the public from the outset in an unprecedented manner.
I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to give the credit that is most certainly due to my right hon. Friend for the way that this has been achieved. People have been brought in from outside Government and the Civil Service to assist and advise Ministers. They were appointed for their personal qualities and for the different perspective that they could bring to bear. The individuals concerned have, between them, experience in business, local authority administration, housing and voluntary and advisory work. I am glad to take this opportunity to thank them for the substantial amount of time they have given to their task so far and for the contribution that they are making.
I am especially sorry that the hon. Gentleman sought yet again to raise any question mark about two members of one review team—Mrs. Shenfield of the WRVS and Mr. Parry Rogers. It was explained clearly to the hon. Gentleman, in a letter that he received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dated 3 October, that his assertion that Mrs. Shenfield was the author of a pamphlet from the Adam Smith Institute was incorrect. She was one of those who offered advice and information. As a matter of courtesy, the authors acknowledged those who gave such information.
Mr. Parry Rogers has been a member of the Institute of Directors for many years, as he has of many other organisations associated with business and commerce. There is no question of anyone being obliged to declare an interest. That has been clear from the outset. He took no part in the discussion when the IOD gave oral evidence at a public session. The reasons were given openly at the public hearing.
The hon. Gentleman complains about only 12 weeks being allowed for giving evidence. Surely three months is a long time, considering the importance of the problem and considering that those invited to give evidence were specialists and had a day-by-day professional interest. I do not accept that three months was too short a time in which to present their evidence.
The hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied that only a chosen few were selected to give oral evidence. The list of those chosen was representative. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give credit for the fact that the hearings were held in public, and not only in London, but in Scotland and Belfast. The public were invited to participate. The fullest consultation took place.
I do not have time to answer all the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, so I shall write to him. We are not yet in a position to give any idea about the conclusions of the reviews because the 4,500 pieces of evidence are being absorbed and studied by the review teams. The hon. Gentleman is clear about the timetable. When the time comes, a document will be issued and there will be a further chance for public comment.
There is participation by other Government Departments, organised by the DHSS, but final conclusions are for the Government as a whole. We are talking about an exercise which involves about 30 per cent. of public spending, which reaches——

Mr. Gordon Brown: Can the Minister answer three questions by saying yes or no? Will there be a Green


Paper, is the Treasury represented on the review teams, and has the Secretary of State for Social Services agreed to cuts in the budget?

Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks, he will see that I have answered those questions.
This is a fundamental exercise which will give fundamental answers within the timetable which we have already announced.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o' clock.